MOVIEtube Adapter

[kyle.presley]

I just realized that the movie tube is a static design, yet it is the most expensive adapter out there! Did anyone else know it was static? Sorry if this topic has come up before.

[Kholi]

Dunno, but the image is crazy good when paired with the DVX. The music video example was great on their site.

[Daniel Schaumberger]

Yes and the best of all: It has a wax-gg which makes a fantastic bokeh!!!
See my wax-gg tutorial and try it for yourself.

[meta4]

wouldn't a wax gg melt in hot conditions?

I'm almost sure I'm not understanding this concept.

[Car3o]

for microwax it takes 190f to melt the wax, so unless you're filming in an oven you sould be alright. some waxes it takes less heat, but it's still around 130f and up.

[Tim Naylor]

Pretty looking gear doesn't make a pretty picture. I've used PS teknik which I liked but still had a few misgivings (light loss and grain). But overall with a sensitive camera like a Varicam or DVX, the light loss isn't a huge issue. The end image has fooled many people into thinking I shot 35mm. The HVX however, is a good stop less sensitive than the the DVX. With any 35 adaptor, light loss becomes a huge issue to the point where you have to ask yourself: if I didn't rent so many lights and waste so much time lighting (labor $$), I might have enough money left to rent a Varicam.

Unless you're shooting exteriors, I feel any light loss more than a stop is unacceptable for an adaptor to be used on an HVX.

Which brings me to the Movietube. Looks great on paper. Looks even better when ooing and aahing. Sucks as an adaptor. The light loss is at least 2 stops. Just finished shooting a music video in a studio and we ended up ditching it less than half way through. The light loss made 2k's into 500's. 4 bank kinos into 1 banks. When we pulled the adaptor, I closed up more than two stops to achieve the same exposure on my waveform.

Yes, I'm at fault. I should've tested it before renting it for a job. I got sucked in by all the hype of no moving GG or flipped image. Well, I realize the flipped image is the trade off for more light and the moving GG for whatever reason is loads sharper than the static Movietube's GG. In fact, I later found my suspicions confirmed in a American Cinematographer article testing the Redrock, PS technik and Movietube by an ASC member for broadcast. Guess which one got the highest marks.? The cheapest - the Redrock.

But what really had me ditch the Mtube was when we went to wide angle lenses. A wide angle especially if your subject's in the background really shows a lens system's resolving power - or lack of it. The movietube's softness was as bad as promist 1 or 2. Unuseable, we took it off and the amount of resolution we got back was astounding. Now you may be thinking our backfocus was off. We checked, checked and triple checked. There's not much to calibrate on the movie tube - infinity and zoom. In fact, it takes work to throw it out of alignment.

Being alot of beauty shots, our closeup work was acceptable. But after getting our light back and sharpness, I swore the movietube off. Two stops plus of light isn't worth the flipped optics or non-moving GG. With that much light loss, rent a better camera and use smaller lights and crew.

Will be testing a Brevis soon. So far, what I've seen looks good. And the 1/2 stop of light and much better H.Held functionality seem promising.

The moral of the story - don't believe the hype.

Tim Naylor - DP timnaylor.com