PDA

View Full Version : Hvx+g35+slow Motion



Wojciech Lorenc
04-09-2006, 01:39 PM
Here are some slow motion clips I shot with the HVX and the STATIC BETA G35. Hope you like it. http://media.libsyn.com/media/hvx/chicago.mov

W

elrosten
04-09-2006, 02:16 PM
Nice. Very Nice. Did you CC that stuff? Has kind of a bleach-bypass look to it.
-jesse

Wojciech Lorenc
04-09-2006, 02:22 PM
Thanks Jesse,
I did crush the blacks quite a bit. In the the very last shot I made the midtones brighter and pulled the blacks down.

W

C-Mac
04-09-2006, 03:04 PM
Hey bro,

Thanks for sharing, that footage looks very nice...lovin the shallow DF...what lens did you use on the G35?

thanks,

chris

www.pulsecinemamedia.com

rgdfilms
04-09-2006, 03:10 PM
That looks nice man - I noticed some graining going on around the edges , did you see this in the RAW or is this a matter of compression ? I get worried about that static GG and HD

Wojciech Lorenc
04-09-2006, 03:27 PM
It does look better before compression. It is a static adapter so you can't expect perfection BUT I have to say I was very surprised how well it performs in HD. I thought that I was going to use the adapter for SD projects only and wait for Cinemek's new adapter for my HD projects. Now I am reconsidering it. I will use it in HD as well. It is a matter of taste and some people will say that the image is too soft but I think that for certain projects (like this one) it works very well.

Wojciech Lorenc
04-09-2006, 03:38 PM
C-Mac,
It was a 50mm Nikkor opened up (1.4)

W

elrosten
04-09-2006, 03:40 PM
I've found that shooting with the G35 beta in HD and downconverting to SD (for broadcast) delivers some very impressive imagery.

-jesse

FatBird19
04-09-2006, 03:55 PM
It does look better before compression. It is a static adapter so you can't expect perfection BUT I have to say I was very surprised how well it performs in HD. I thought that I was going to use the adapter for SD projects only and wait for Cinemek's new adapter for my HD projects. Now I am reconsidering it. I will use it in HD as well. It is a matter of taste and some people will say that the image is too soft but I think that for certain projects (like this one) it works very well.

I may be wrong, but I do believe that the G35 has the sharpest image out of all 35mm adapters.

Erik Olson
04-09-2006, 04:15 PM
Love it.

e

Wojciech Lorenc
04-09-2006, 04:17 PM
[QUOTE=elrosten]I've found that shooting with the G35 beta in HD and downconverting to SD (for broadcast) delivers some very impressive imagery.

Jesse,
I agree. That's what I meant by SD projects. Shoot HD and downconvert to SD. I am very impressed with the quality of uncompressed SD footage donconverted from HD. When I used my G35 with a DVX I was a little afraid people will point out the softness of the image (although nobody ever did - even on big HDTV screens). Now I feel 100% confident.

Dmitry Kichenko
04-09-2006, 04:27 PM
This is really good. I think it's happened indeed, fellow DVXUsers. We now have an affordable piece of equipment which can produce footage that won't be labeled as home-made movies :).

FatBird19
04-09-2006, 04:28 PM
ps, this footage almost made me crap my pants. Nice work. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

C-Mac
04-09-2006, 04:38 PM
C-Mac,
It was a 50mm Nikkor opened up (1.4)

W

Thanks Bro, very cool!

chris

rgdfilms
04-09-2006, 04:47 PM
What happened to that adapter ever being released ever, I wish they would be a little more upfront about release dates - i'm likely to buy the m2 if it's not ready by august

FatBird19
04-09-2006, 04:58 PM
I'm amazed at just how sharp the footage is. It didn't look adapterish at all. It just looked like film. :)

rgdfilms
04-09-2006, 05:06 PM
Yes beautiful and pretty but WHERE IS IT ?

moe52
04-09-2006, 05:14 PM
Love it good job!

Poi Boy
04-09-2006, 07:22 PM
I'd say it is unusable for anything but a test till they get that thing spinning. I can see why they had to redesign.
aloha
-A

Dmitry Kichenko
04-09-2006, 07:29 PM
I'd say it is unusable for anything but a test till they get that thing spinning. I can see why they had to redesign.
aloha
-A
Not sure it would help the thread, but I strongly disagree. It's a bit hard to judge with all the compression, but it looks very decent to me.

Poi Boy
04-09-2006, 07:37 PM
Dmitry,
Compare to this footage and others posted from M2 the footage is unusable for paying gigs until the get it spinning. I'm sure it will look great when the redesign is finished.
Aloha
-A
http://web.mac.com/poiboy/buddies.mov

rgdfilms
04-09-2006, 08:18 PM
Where'd you hear about the redesign ?

bgundu
04-09-2006, 08:25 PM
Where'd you hear about the redesign ?

Cinemek has publicly stated that they are redesigning it with a vibrating Ground Glass.

Slimothy
04-09-2006, 08:28 PM
Looks great. Thanks for sharing

macgregor
04-10-2006, 06:40 AM
Still the HVX looks like if it has some heavy noise reduction filter. Everything looks like with a median filter has been applied. Am i the only one to notice this?

JackFoley
04-10-2006, 09:37 AM
Actually, that is the first footage of the HVX that I personally consider to really *rock* . Go G35, go!

macgregor: yeah, just wait what the final G35 will do on a XLH1 :nads:

Dmitry Kichenko
04-10-2006, 11:26 AM
Like I said... With all the compression it almost looks like noise reduction was applied. I hardly see any noise but mostly due to a low bitrate.

Andrew Brinkhaus
04-10-2006, 01:23 PM
dude, all im getting is like an hour long audio podcast...

bgundu
04-10-2006, 01:39 PM
dude, all im getting is like an hour long audio podcast...


QUICKTIME 7 required.

Matthew Bennett
04-10-2006, 02:10 PM
Hey MacGregor, you're on the 'inside' ... Hows the G35 doing? That sucker better be edge to edge! (sharp I mean)

FatBird19
04-10-2006, 04:06 PM
Still the HVX looks like if it has some heavy noise reduction filter. Everything looks like with a median filter has been applied. Am i the only one to notice this?

The other thing I noticed was that some of the unfocused parts of the screen have an obvious "layered" look to them. I noticed this especially on the chain link fence at the beginning. You can obviously see the blurred aspect of the fence, but if you look real closely you can also slightly see the fence in perfect focus like you would if the adapter wasn't there.

I remember this was one of the early problems with the M2 also.
Can this be improved on? Is this only with older G35 models? Is this something inherent to 35mm adapters in general?

Andrew Brinkhaus
04-10-2006, 04:17 PM
already have it. Also, im getting a different page than whats linked. When I try to copy and paste the site into my address bar, it takes me to a "file not found" page.

DavidBeier
04-10-2006, 04:21 PM
Nicely does though the compression really hurts ya.

im.thatoneguy
04-10-2006, 04:44 PM
I was wondering the same thing about the fence. Any idea what was causing that? Were there two fences? Did you have a matte box/filter creating weird reflections?

Was the image reflecting off of the achromat?

Poi Boy
04-10-2006, 04:57 PM
These are the issues that makes the g35 unusable for paying work till they get the element moving !!!
-A

FatBird19
04-10-2006, 05:35 PM
These are the issues that makes the g35 unusable for paying work till they get the element moving !!!
-A

I don't see how a spinning glass would fix that issue.

Maybe the later beta versions fix this?

Forrest Schultz
04-10-2006, 05:47 PM
It looks like a double fence, the fence wires are too spread apart to be anything caused by the adapter. otherwise the people in the pictures out of focus would also create this effect. but it doesnt

FatBird19
04-10-2006, 05:49 PM
It looks like a double fence, the fence wires are too spread apart to be anything caused by the adapter. otherwise the people in the pictures out of focus would also create this effect. but it doesnt

no, it's still there, it's just harder to see.
From what I've observed, it seems that objects before the plane of focus suffer from this worse than objets behind the plane of focus.
I suppose we'd need someone who's light physics literate to explain all of this though.

FatBird19
04-10-2006, 05:52 PM
These are the issues that makes the g35 unusable for paying work till they get the element moving !!!
-A

The reason I don't think this will fix the issue is because a spinning glass doesn't affect the way in which the lens focuses on the screen. To fix this, I think there would have to be a change in the glass design itself.

On that note, is this the low-lux or the high-lux model? It seems like the bokeh is a little more gaussian than lens blurred. Maybe the high-lux design of the glass fixes this issue?

FatBird19
04-10-2006, 06:44 PM
I looked at it again. Judging from the bokeh, I think it's the lo-lux model.
Could be wrong though.

Poi Boy
04-10-2006, 06:47 PM
What you are seeing and is quite visible throughout the image is the texture/surface of the element. You may be mistaking some of this as compression artifacts. when the element spins you no longer see all that junk. You get more or less the same effect on the m2 if you forget to turn on the motor that is why I'm so sure about this and why it is unusable in the current design.
-A
Aloha

FatBird19
04-10-2006, 06:52 PM
What you are seeing and is quite visible throughout the image is the texture/surface of the element. You may be mistaking some of this as compression artifacts. when the element spins you no longer see all that junk. You get more or less the same effect on the m2 if you forget to turn on the motor that is why I'm so sure about this and why it is unusable in the current design.
-A
Aloha

weird. :0

Wojciech Lorenc
04-10-2006, 06:55 PM
I was wondering the same thing about the fence. Any idea what was causing that? Were there two fences? Did you have a matte box/filter creating weird reflections?

Was the image reflecting off of the achromat?


Two fences.
There was a wire gate that was wide open and in effect overlaping the fence. No matte boxes/filters used.

J.R. Hudson
04-10-2006, 07:01 PM
Beautiful !

rook
04-10-2006, 07:11 PM
My god.

That looks great. I have no problem with the grain either. Actually, it's quite pleasing.

It's images like these that make people go crazy with gear lust.

HVX and G35. What a killer combo.

Great work. Love the shots.

-rook

Wojciech Lorenc
04-10-2006, 10:03 PM
These are the issues that makes the g35 unusable for paying work till they get the element moving !!!
-A

I just got paid for this so here goes your theory. :)

Seriously though - I agree that a spinning adapter is a superior solution and can't wait for Cinemek to release the spinning version. I am in line to get it as soon as it comes out. But the way I see it there really are no standards that render something usable or unusable. It is all very subjective. I read these boards often and I constantly see people proclaim various pieces of equipment not good enough or unusable. I read posts where people swear that HDV is "not good enough". Just recently I have been blown away with an HDV filmout. Wasn't Macgergor's SIMILO shot with a Sony with a static G35? What a great film! I see people complain about the noise of HVX and therefore proclaim that camera unusable. Some people even state that HVX is not high definition. Even Super16 is not good enough for some people.

So what determines a piece of equipment usable? Type of project, desired style, delivery medium, and of course a client (or audience). I have made money using a DVX with a static G35 and the clients were always happy. There might be clients out there who, like Poi Boy, have higher standars and wouldn't accept an HD footage captured with a static adapter. In these cases this setup will, in fact, be unusable. But I don't think you can proclaim it flat unusable for all paying work.

I think we are all video geeks who tend to sit with our noses pressed against the screen looking for problems. An average viewer doesn't see half as much as we do.
Here's an example. Today I showed this clip to a group of film students (graduating seniors) who focus on post-production. You would think they are a sophisticated viewer, right? I have been talking to them about compression and showing examples. I haven't mentioned the adapter and I suspect most don't even know they exist or what they do. I showed it on a 50inch plasma and asked about their guess on the file size. They didn't look at it up close. They were sitting about 10-15 feet away which seems like a normal distance to watch TV. Guess what. They thought they were looking at uncompressed HD! I know it seems like a strech. I couldn't belive it either.

What's the point of this rant? We are lucky to live in times where we have lots of really cool toys to play with. I, personally, feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm running out of excuses and it's time for me to accept that I DO in fact have gear that is good enough.

It's a pretty scary thought when you think about it. It implies that if my work sucks I have only my skills to blame. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) Cheers!

Poi Boy
04-10-2006, 10:23 PM
right you are...I was being a dick.
Aloha
-A

rawfa
04-11-2006, 08:12 AM
I just got paid for this so here goes your theory. :)

Seriously though - I agree that a spinning adapter is a superior solution and can't wait for Cinemek to release the spinning version. I am in line to get it as soon as it comes out. But the way I see it there really are no standards that render something usable or unusable. It is all very subjective. I read these boards often and I constantly see people proclaim various pieces of equipment not good enough or unusable. I read posts where people swear that HDV is "not good enough". Just recently I have been blown away with an HDV filmout. Wasn't Macgergor's SIMILO shot with a Sony with a static G35? What a great film! I see people complain about the noise of HVX and therefore proclaim that camera unusable. Some people even state that HVX is not high definition. Even Super16 is not good enough for some people.

So what determines a piece of equipment usable? Type of project, desired style, delivery medium, and of course a client (or audience). I have made money using a DVX with a static G35 and the clients were always happy. There might be clients out there who, like Poi Boy, have higher standars and wouldn't accept an HD footage captured with a static adapter. In these cases this setup will, in fact, be unusable. But I don't think you can proclaim it flat unusable for all paying work.

What's the point of this rant? We are lucky to live in times where we have lots of really cool toys to play with. I, personally, feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm running out of excuses and it's time for me to accept that I DO in fact have gear that is good enough.

It's a pretty scary thought when you think about it. It implies that if my work sucks I have only my skills to blame. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) Cheers!

Man, that was beautifuly put. It's like you pulled it out of my mind. I agreed with you 100%.

petri63
04-11-2006, 09:22 AM
Wojciech,

Nice clip and look. I liked it.

Youíre totally right in saying how well equipment works is a subjective thing...

While I realize this was the static version of the G35, for my own personal taste, the GG diffusion is insufficient. As Fatbird mentions, there is an aerial image around objects that are out-of-focus. This is most visible in the fence wires, towards the end, and around the pipes on the wall in the very last part. Basically, the edges of the objects should not be as distinctly discernable. This effect usually comes from insufficient diffusion (according to my own personal standards). Having the GG spin or vibrate will not change this, as it is due to the GG itself.

Now, again, diffusion/bokeh is quite subjective. Some people prefer or donít mind light diffusion while others want completely blurred bokeh.

Good job on the clip!

Wojciech Lorenc
04-11-2006, 09:52 AM
I know what you guys mean by the aerial image around the objects. I noticed that too. I noticed that this usually happens to the foreground objects that are pretty close to the focus plane. Once you shift the focus farther away the diffusion looks more like it would if shot on film. Take a look at the 4th shot in a sequence. This is shot through the fence as well and the wires look more evenly diffused.

I honestly don't know if this is inherent to this adapter only or to all adapters in general. Keep in mind that I have a very early beta version of the G35 and this might be corrected in the released version. Would I like to see an even distribution? Sure! Will I keep shooting with this meanwhile? You bet!

tigeba
04-11-2006, 09:53 AM
I read these boards often and I constantly see people proclaim various pieces of equipment not good enough or unusable. I read posts where people swear that HDV is "not good enough". Just recently I have been blown away with an HDV filmout. Wasn't Macgergor's SIMILO shot with a Sony with a static G35? What a great film! I see people complain about the noise of HVX and therefore proclaim that camera unusable. Some people even state that HVX is not high definition. Even Super16 is not good enough for some people.



I believe macgregor has a hi-lux G35 beta unit, and he shot SIMILO on a DVX100. A lot of his other footage is done with a Sony HDV, and everything looks incredible :) I think a lot of that has to do with macgregor!

Wojciech Lorenc
04-11-2006, 11:50 AM
Jonathan just mentioned in the other thread that the production unit will not have the arial image. So here you go :)

FatBird19
04-11-2006, 11:58 AM
Jonathan just mentioned in the other thread that the production unit will not have the arial image. So here you go :)

Arial image...
Is that the double image thing we've been talking about?

im.thatoneguy
04-11-2006, 02:24 PM
Lol. No the "Double image" turned out to be just a double object.

I'm glad it was the way the world was, because I couldn't for the life of me figure out what optical property would create that effect. Especially since if it was an internal reflection, it was reflecting in the wrong direction!

FatBird19
04-11-2006, 07:00 PM
Lol. No the "Double image" turned out to be just a double object.

You sure? I see it in more places than just the fence. Every shot with blur in this video exhibits this effect to some extent or another.

rawfa
04-13-2006, 12:36 AM
Wojciech, I see the minor detail everybody is focusing on but for me this is 100% acceptable. The whole thing looks astonishingly beautiful for me. It IS "film". If people think about it, even with this "flaw" the G35 still beats the living crap out of most other adapters out there.

Angrius
04-13-2006, 06:54 AM
I believe macgregor has a hi-lux G35 beta unit, and he shot SIMILO on a DVX100. A lot of his other footage is done with a Sony HDV, and everything looks incredible :) I think a lot of that has to do with macgregor!


Macgregor wasn't Similo shot on the FX1?

jjprodmast
04-13-2006, 07:00 AM
Could someone mirror this possibly? The server is moving at the speed of the US governmet (*BA-dum CHA*).

But, seriously folks, I'll be here through Thursday!

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it. Very good footage.

Barry_Green
04-13-2006, 12:06 PM
Macgregor wasn't Similo shot on the FX1?
Nope, DVX. It was for DVXFest, which requires a DVX. And some of the behind-the-scenes footage shows him using the DVX.

Emanuel
04-13-2006, 12:35 PM
Yup, Barry you're right. Similo is one of the video footage that it's possible to get from DV, as well, DVX is. Otherwise, the Miguel/macgregor's choice in order to XL-H1 is a significant tip (the best available definition to use with a 1/3" camera in order to shallow DOF goal?), also it will be if Steven Dempsey will go with Canon instead HVX or even HD100.

casey warren
04-14-2006, 12:46 AM
Awesome footage, the CC style kinda reminds me of the print ad's that Apple has in their stores. nice, nice stuff.

steve32
04-14-2006, 07:15 PM
amazing footage! I now know what camera to get

tuface
04-14-2006, 11:42 PM
Beautiful stuff. What frame rate(s) did you use?

Wojciech Lorenc
04-15-2006, 08:50 AM
thanks,
it was shot 60fps

Strongbad_2Z
04-15-2006, 12:45 PM
Questions for you all...when using the G35, does it flip and rotate the image like the M2? Also, how much is it? Any ideas on how the motor for the ground glass on the new version will be powered? Thanks!