RedRock M2 versus Cinevate Brevis : A Review...

[rgdfilms]

It's at my new blog


VLOG!

http://gearbrain.blogspot.com/ (http://gearbrain.blogspot.com)

Comments welcome..

:zombie_smiley:

[Kholi]

I noticed that you said the Brevis is the more-expensive unit.

Comparing the prices of the kits, it looks like the Brevis package is actually cheaper. Did you get some extra stuff?

THanks for the comparison. I think I will go with the Brevis.

[THoff]

The way I read it the basic price for the Brevis is slightly higher, but as a kit with the achromat, it's cheaper. I also noticed the first two pictures at the top don't show, at least for me.

Thanks for taking up the 35mm adapter challenge!

[ProjX v2.0]

The M2 footage looked more filmic to me. Has anyone ever done this sort of comparison with a Letus?

[SPZ]

Thanks a lot for the comparison. This was what I was waiting for. It seems like the Brevis is the way to go, for me.

[Christopher Barry]

Thanks Richard, you put a lot of effort into the review, I appreciate that. The Brevis and M2 are great products, both have pros and cons, which you highlighted well. I am happy with my Brevis choice. :thumbsup:

[Lenilenapi]

Brevis is very slightly higher when you put the whole package together, but really its a minor negligable difference.

[rgdfilms]

Actually no, Brevis is cheaper when you are comparing the rail system + achromat + imager to the M2 - $1214 as compared to M2's $1300 price tag

If you're only interested in buying the adapter, the M2 will be cheaper at $550, but you WILL need rails to support that sucka, whereas you don't really need them for the Brevis..

[Kholi]

Actually no, Brevis is cheaper when you are comparing the rail system + achromat + imager to the M2 - $1214 as compared to M2's $1300 price tag

If you're only interested in buying the adapter, the M2 will be cheaper at $550, but you WILL need rails to support that sucka, whereas you don't really need them for the Brevis..

That's what I thought. Sorry, I misunderstood. Brevis looks like the winner, to me. Lots of light and a clean image.

Thanks again, Richard. Must purchase Brevis! Is it really a 10 week turnaround, though?

[snodart]

Great stuff. Thanks!

[Kevin Wells]

Thanks for putting this together! Very informative. The Brevis really impressed me.

-kevin

[Steve Shovlar]

Thanks for the review and comparisons.

I am an owner of the M2 and love it. but am always willing to try out new gear.

A couple of things really do worry me about the Brevis. Wonder if you could answer them for me.

Noise issue. Yo say the Brevis is quite noisy. Noisy enough to be picked up by mics? Nothing worse than tryoing to shoot some actors with a faint buzz in the background which shouldn't be there.

Rails. no rails for the Brevis. Can you use rails with it? If I have the Brevis attached to the HVX200, and then use a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8, I am putting far too much weight on the cameras front thread and will damage it without doubt.

Do you get edge to edge sharpness out of the box with the Brevis? If so is the gg adjustable to improve the image?

Thanks

[Dennis Wood]

I'll jump in here with a few answers.

1. Turnaround times are steadily droppping, and will become about 5 days as we work through the backlog created by (now resolved with a new supplier) major issues with supply of our 72mm HD achromats. These new achromats are just outstanding with respect to distortion, CA, and quality control.

2. Yes the Brevis can be used on rails which are included in the "full package" Richard described: http://www.cinevate.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=186 The new rail supports for the Brevis itself are black..the one in this pic is not coated yet.

3. Our diffuser option 1 and 2 both offer higher diffusion with a corresponding "cost" in terms of light loss. Our latest diffuser option 2 has a cinematic feel that I suspect is going to be very, very popular. I will be releasing HD footage from it as soon as the XH-A1 arrives. There is a clip here (http://www.cinevate.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=188) from a dvx100b and the diffuser option 1. It became very apparent during beta testing that a full range of diffusers (GG's) would be required to keep everyone happy.

4. We are moving to a new, even quieter drive system, that will of course be backwards compatible. It will not be released though until I've spent a month or so with it on my own unit.

Edit: Richard's results with the adapter came despite not actually having read the user manual :-) Credit to his skills there.

[Steve Shovlar]

Thanks for the reply Dennis. Although I own an M2 and am very happy with it, I do like to try other products and will consider picking up one of your adaptors in the future. I like the idea of bolt on and go, something that can't be done very easily with the M2.

[Noah]

Is the new rail mount available now?

[IanK]

Which diffuser was used in the test as apparently there are two options.

Ian

[Dennis Wood]

Noah, the new rail mount is available, but I won't be updating our online catalog until they come back from final coating (photo matte black).

Ian, Richard used the standard diffuser. We have two currently available, and a third due for release in December. The third option will see higher light loss, but is the best match yet for film at wide open apertures. I'll have HD footage from it up as soon as the A1 arrives. Option 2 is a merge of several technologies, and although it loses more light than the standard, and option 1, I am completely stoked on the look.

Steve, any feedback is good feedback! I've been fortunate to work with some great folks whose critiques have just made the adapter better. We are working with a very intimate production workflow which makes incremental improvements very easy to implement.
__________________

[jeremytuttle]

Thanks for all the info, really appreciate it.

Is it just me or does the Brevis give the DOF a flat look. For example, when you have a small object in the foreground in focus, the whole background blurs evenly making it look almost like a picture was placed behind the object. Where as the M2 looks a little more smoothly blended from blurred "mid" ground to even more blurred background.

Also, the song that goes along with the test footage is fantastic. If the video was of paint drying that song would make it feel fast and energetic... who was the artist?

[rgdfilms]

Camera tests can seem like paint drying to some.. at least to my non-tech girlfriend..

The song was by Rodrigo y Gabriela - Forget the name of the album but it is awesome if you have a chance to listen to it - They do a great rendition of Stairway to Heaven

[Lenilenapi]

I haven't seen the look of different diffusers but it seems to me that the DOF attributes of these units has to be identical - they are dependent on the 35mm lens.

The ground glass differences could affect the feel and the contrast quite a bit. though. Remember, its very hard to judge these things accurately on the web through mountains of compression, don't get carried away.

[rgdfilms]

Actually the compression I am using is very similar to the original if you don't scale it up. Not too many artifacts when using Compressor 2 on a Mac - Originals would be a better judge but bandwidth would be an issue..

[rgdfilms]

Shot this video last night, here is an example of the vibration noise with the Brevis - my audio levels are in the mid-range on the HVX in this clip, camera pointed down. A lot of those higher frequencies you are hearing are actually from the 28mm Nikkor, lower frequencies are the coming out of the Brevis. I have been holding my hand over the Brevis while shooting and that seems to help. I think a cloth washcloth would help as well.. I am going to play more with it.

http://www.richard-darge.com/HD/vibrationnoise.mov

this clip came from this piece if you are bored..

http://www.richard-darge.com/HD/hairbrush.mov

[Dennis Wood]

Richard, that hair brush clip needs a bald guy at the end (I'm uniquely qualified to comment) shrieking and holding his head :-) Mr. Hitchcock would be proud.

[StMad]

Nice post rgd, things are getting clearer. A couple of questions for you and Dennis...

1) The M2 is vignetting in your tests...I'm guessing your point is to show the usable frame with each adapter? If so, that's quite a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong - using a 24mm lens on the M2 might offer the same fov as a 28mm on the Brevis, for eg?

2) The light loss between the adapters seems significant. How many stops would you say? Edit - based on the door test, it seems more than 2 stops.

3) Dennis, is the diffuser used the sole reason for the difference in light loss? Can you give an estimate on how many stops each of the diffuser options will lose?

Thanks

[Dennis Wood]

The standard on my test cam (soon to be the A1, so I'll update) is .5 stops lost using a 50mm f1.4 and the same distance/framing with and without the adapter.

Option 1 is about .3 to .5 more, and option 2 likely ~ .5 more again for a total of 1 to 1.3 total loss. The diffusion level of option 2 is however much higher, in the order of 2.5x for incredibly shallow DOF. It, however, will still need ND filters in bright conditions.

[rgdfilms]

Dennis, Is option #2 the one coming out in December? Right now, if someone were to order your adapter, they would get the standard diffuser, then they have the option of getting the Option 1 or Option 2 diffuser? I am guessing your diffusers climb in stages of deeper DOF/higher light loss?

[Lenilenapi]

Dennis, what do you mean by "The diffusion level of option 2 is however much higher"

I take the word diffusion to mean something akin to a promist filter that spreads highlights and/or softens the picture. You seem to mean this entirely differently.
Also I imagine I would want to at least start with a diffusion screen that gives me the closest thing to a clean pure sharp image, as a film image would be.

I don't at all understand how the diffusion screen could be affecting DOF unless it just making the entire epicture soft of overall., but that'snot the same as DOF.

Could you just explain what higher levels of diffusion do in your unit?

[Kholi]

Shot this video last night, here is an example of the vibration noise with the Brevis - my audio levels are in the mid-range on the HVX in this clip, camera pointed down. A lot of those higher frequencies you are hearing are actually from the 28mm Nikkor, lower frequencies are the coming out of the Brevis. I have been holding my hand over the Brevis while shooting and that seems to help. I think a cloth washcloth would help as well.. I am going to play more with it.

http://www.richard-darge.com/HD/vibrationnoise.mov

this clip came from this piece if you are bored..

http://www.richard-darge.com/HD/hairbrush.mov

ROFLMFAO @ HAIRBRUSH.MOV

That was freaking hilarious. I love that part of the song, as well. The end of it. Particularly because Busta Rhymes sampled it for "Gimme some mo" and I love that song.

Thanks, Richard.

[zureyfa]

Thank you Richard. It is a GREAT job.

I was thinking to buy Brevis before i saw the footages.
Although i like Brevis (because of it size) M2 footages is more DOF and more filmic than Brevis. They are not the same.M2 is clear winner in DOF and filmic look. Even i show the clip to my friend (who dont understand 35mm, dof etc. He said M2 is more and more film look and DOF)

But i do not want to bring a rod or tripod with my DVX100b so M2 is not a case for me.

Can anybody suggest me a 35mm adapter with the same size of Brevis and same dof or picture quality with M2? Or not invented yet????

Ergin

[rgdfilms]

Well Ergin, there was this LEGEND around here once called the G35, a.k.a. the Cinemek which probably had the best looking latitude and DOF from any adapter out there. www.cinemek.com - Nobody knows what happened to these guys. If they released their adapter sooner, they would have been the KINGS of the market... From what I remember they had a similar light weight design like the Brevis and I believe they used a type of wax formula for the ground glass - The cool thing about the Brevis is that they will be releasing alternative ground glass options in the near future. You will be able to install these alternative elements and get different looks and deeper DOF like what you're looking for. That should be pretty interesting to say the least.. I always though the MovieTube was pretty badass as well.. it better be for $13k +

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Guys don't bitch about different DOF as much of the Brevis stuff is shot at f4 and M2 at f1.8 -- and yet M2 is still darker... The loss of light with M2 is really significant from my experience. ANyone in NYC area who has Brevis adapter and want to test the stuff with me?

[Dennis Wood]

Len, diffusion level and DOF are closely linked, as is light loss. So when I say that option 2 is 2.5x more diffuse, it means that the DOF is much, much shallower using it. You will not see a difference in sharpness so much as an increase in light loss. Option 2 is the closest to film I've ever seen with this adapter. You can use the term diffuser or GG to describe the same part...but the Brevis diffusers are so removed at this point from ground glass, it seems misleading to call them that.

I'll be posting up some A1 footage (should be here today) that will illustrate the differences. The whole idea is to allow shooters to pick the level of diffusion because to many, low light loss and sharpness is the number one criteria. Others worry less on light but want the shallowest DOF and film emulation possible. We have a diffuser option at this point for everyone. We wanted to start with light loss as the number one criteria, and then add options from there. As time goes by, and testing is done, we've started to merge several technologies now in the diffusers.

The options swap in and require 5 minutes or so once you've done it a few times.

[Kholi]

A1 footage is coming!!!!

[Noah]

Would the new diffuser option be priced the same as the diffusion option 1, around $140?

[Lenilenapi]

Dennis, as you know I have a Brevis on order and love the idea of multiple choice diffusers, so I'm certainly not taking a critical point of view here.
However I am still totally confused by the use of the term DOF on these pages.

As I understand it, Depth of Field is an objective, measurable optical phenomena that is dependant only on lens, f-stop and the size of the target image area. The only possible variable is what circle of confusion is accepted as "out of focus" for the medium ( I think 16 & 35 might be diffferent) but I'm not sure even that is ever considered a variable.

It seems to me when you say diffusers change the DOF, you must be describing some optical phenomena that appoximates DOF, maybe its a "perceived DOF" based on the way light scatters in the diffuser, but I would like to see it separated from the optical term DOF.
This stuff is bending my brain a little. Enlighten me if I am missing something.

How does a diffuser change the optical DOF?

I look forward to seeing the image comparisons - even more to receiving my Brevis.

- Lenny Levy

[Lenilenapi]

RGD,
You've mentioned that on the Brevis you were shooting at Z75 F10.
What were you using for the Redrock?
Also did you consider trying to switch achromats or is the Brevis achromat built into the system?

Lenny Levy

[zureyfa]

Please see the attached stills taken from the Richard's footage.

I still do not understand why there is such a difference in DOF.

Patryk; both stills have the same f-stop. So we should consider them equal.

It seems there are quite light loss in M2. I agree..

Dennis explain the difference?:huh: Is the a reason what we miss?? (By the way i am a fan of Brevis!)


Ergin
</IMG>

[Lenilenapi]

Interesting comparisons.

It seems like there is an overall softness in the M2 footage but its hard to see how that would explain all the apparent DOF difference. It might.

Also I notice that the treatment of highlights is different. The M2 seemes a bit more like a Low con effect where the highlights are being diffused into the image a bit more and never get quite as hot as they do in the Brevis. This fits in with Dennis's description of how different diffusers work.
But maybe the window light (if it was a window) changed in between shots.

[Justyn]

I'd say the same thing. The Rerock has a narrower DOF atleast with Richards Set-up now... but man it's a much softer image.. and that light loss is WAY signifigant. The Brevis looks sweet, especially with that rod support and the new options... but the noise would really end up killing my audio guy... and I'd be wrapped in sound blankets...

The edge sotness of the M2 had always looked a bit odd... doesn't seem to have that with the Brevis.... The only other thing is that if we were saying this to people I think they'd confuse it and think I was talking about Bevis and Butthead. How did you come up with this name?


Good review Richard... I would also like to see that SGpro included.. Some sweet looking stuff with that one.

[Dennis Wood]

The DOF of field calc does not mathematically change, but it sure looks different as diffusion level changes. Out of focus areas become much more blended, basically hiding more detail (in out of focus areas) as diffusion level goes up. This extreme diffuse look is described by some as "cinematic" mostly I think as it comes very close to the look of film on a wide open lens. I wasn't going to do this, but here's a grab from the old GS400 and the latest diffuser. Although shot a bit hot, you can still see how the extra diffusion affects the out of focus regions.

http://www.cinevate.com/images/opt2grab.jpg


The A1 did come in today but there was little time to play. Other than making sure the cam worked, and framing up the GG, I only shot a few minutes in the shop. Btw, this unit is being tested with the new drive system and is virtually silent. It will work in any of the current adapters, but I won't release it until more confidence testing is done. I'll post up some footy from the prototype option 2 diffuser in a day or two once I figure the A1 out a bit better :-) Until then, a teaser.

http://www.cinevate.com/images/xha1rails.jpg

[rgdfilms]

That's sweet. Dennis, will existing users of the current Brevis be able to take advantage of this new, quieter design? Or will this feature ship on all new models. If old users can use it, what will we expect to pay for such an upgrade?

[Lenilenapi]

What a beautiful little girl Dennis and a beautiful shot as well.
Thanks for the explanation about DOF. Sounds mysterious but I guess that is what happens. Actually it will be nice to have more DOF sometimes as well. It will be nice to have the options.

I guess I've got the same question as Richard. Any chance I'l be able to get the quiet version in about 2 weeks when mine is supposed to be ready?

It's great to watch you constantly trying to improve your designs. Unfortunately it makes us always want that new one that's not quite ready yet.

I am still confused as to just what ships with basic unit. If its just one diffuser should I add the second one I see on your website that is an extra $150 or so?

[Dennis Wood]

Yes, once I'm happy with all aspects of testing, it will go into all future units. Any existing units can be retro-fitted and will be done well below my cost (like less than a tank of fuel in an SUV :-) It will be tested for at least a month, maybe more as it needs to work properly with all the diffuser options, test lenses etc. The unit ships with the standard, soon to be called CINEFUSE 1, and the second diffuser, soon to be called CINEFUSE 2, is the one you're referring to Len.

The improving thing is indeed a bit of a conflict at times, but I've been upgrading older ones virtually for free too so no one gets left behind.

Thanks for the comments on our tyke. She is getting pretty good at getting filmed, photographed, recorded and otherwise documented :-)

[rgdfilms]

Could a retro-fit be accomplished at home with a few tools or would the unit need to be sent in for upgrading?

In total, by the new year, you will have the Cinefuse 1 which ships with the Brevis, the Cinefuse 2 which offers more diffusion and the Cinefuse 3 which gives the greatest amount of diffusion?

Will potential customers have the option of choosing their Cinefuse when they order?

[Beat Takeshi]

While in Florida I found that for the close up type head shots where you want shallow depth of field a zoom lens is best with the Brevis. I was able to get the DOF really thin. It would be really hard to use if you are doing any type of rack focus because the lense control moves in and out along with the normal twisting. The cool think about using a zoom is that you can control the amount of background blur.
Our tests with the M2 and Brevis were similar but we never did a write up. The Brevis noise didn't really bother me because in interview type situations you would be using a lav anyway and it won't pick it up. During a scene type narrative the mic in on a pole far enough away from camera that it won't really pick it up either. Of course if you are sitting in a quite a$$ room with the mic on top of the camera you might hear it. The one thing I don't like about the vibrating GG is that if you get a flare in the shot its going to occilate and is really noticable on static shots. The M2 just blurs the flare in the direction the GG is moving. At the end of the day though the Brevis was the better adapter in my opinion.

[Christopher Barry]

.....if we were saying this to people I think they'd confuse it and think I was talking about Bevis and Butthead. How did you come up with this name?
lmao Justyn, Bevis and Butthead. :D

Brevis (latin): short, small, brief.

[Lenilenapi]

Without being politically correct or anything, I'd cool the Bevis & Butthead business as it could really feel like a slur to Brian and the other guys at Redrock who have done a fabulous job for our community and all of us as artists. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way though.

Dennis again thanks for the clarification. I expect you'll find a lot of us contributing to that tyke's "college fund".

[pretopost]

Without being politically correct or anything, I'd cool the Bevis & Butthead business as it could really feel like a slur to Brian and the other guys at Redrock who have done a fabulous job for our community and all of us as artists. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way though.

Dennis again thanks for the clarification. I expect you'll find a lot of us contributing to that tyke's "college fund".

WOW...If anyone knows Justyn, he would never make the comparison you are alluding too. Settle down and act professional and you will be treated as such.

[Christopher Barry]

Without being politically correct or anything, I'd cool the Bevis & Butthead business as it could really feel like a slur to Brian and the other guys at Redrock who have done a fabulous job for our community and all of us as artists. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way though.
That never even crossed my mind. Only thing I saw was "Bevis" sounds like "Brevis". Brevis and M2, mighty fine products. :thumbsup:

[Lenilenapi]

Hey i'm not accusing anybody of anything - just saw a different way that could be read in a thread that generally likes one adapter more than the other. No big deal it would be unfortunate if it caught on though.

[rgdfilms]

Maybe your subconcious thinks the M2 is a butthead.. Honestly, I didn't read it that way either..

[Lenilenapi]

sorry folks , why don't we drop it.

[TimurCivan]

i saw alot of difference between the same adapter between different takes. i think in alot of the shots, the adapter was not "perfectly" adjusted. like the camera focus slippes a MF number or somethign.

[peter orland]

Personally I think the whole thread is a bit...wrong. The title states "RedRock M2 verses Cinevate Brevis..." which like all the blah v's blah threads, they usually end up on a negative as the lovers/owners of either product step up to the plate in defence of their own decision/product choice.

I sincerely hope that no one is reading or viewing this review on any level other than for a bit of fun.

With all due respect to Richard, and the effort that he has clearly gone to, the review footage that has been presented here is across the board badly set up and shot, and in no way represents what either of these adapters is capable of achieving.

All over the board there are excellent examples of what can be achieved with these adapters and the combination of, careful preparation and set up, adherence to appropriate lighting technique, and a generally high level of craft skillset peppered with (if you're lucky) some innate talent.

Thanks again to rdgfilms for going to the effort but let's keep it in perspective.

Pete.

[josephfilms13]

i agree with peter -i have been a lurker for a long time and this smacks of a bias. rgdfilms has already said he is selling is m2 so great - it doesn't meet his needs. it is hardly an unbiased view and rgdfilms should state that. that M2 butthead comment says it all for me

there are some obvious things that concern me on this whole thing like:

i have seen this no light loss before from redrock. it ended up that the physics created ghosting. I am very interested in seeing better tests that CLEARLY show this not to happen. Redrock was good about it and updated their adapter to fix this.

also, the semi-circle bit in the review is just flat wrong. 35mm lenses project a certain USABLE image size. As I understand redrock the ENTIRE usable frame is shown on that part of the adapter. why didn't you say that instead of talking something about vignetting? the tests on usable image were useless on this point .

then there's the weight. Redrock adapter is designed to be put on rods. they are up front that the entire kit weighs like 6 pounds with rods, rod plate and so forth. that to me hardly counts for "heavy". have you tried carrying an arri film camera around? also redrock could have used lighter carbon fiber rods, but they chose to use solid metal. it's built really well and can easily support a large lens follow focus and matte box. I do not believe it's fair to compare it to handheld. Many people (hundreds? thousands?) have used it with shoulder mount with reports of great results. I do not even understand the idea of using a DOF adapter and only handheld. How are you supposed to see it through the upside down viewfinder? how are you supposed to pull focus?? rack focus?

then someone wrote something about "did you see such and so footage, it really made a difference for me" wow. have you seen some of the redrock stuff on here like the illegal footage? also other adapters too like P+S even though it is too expensive.

I do not have any axe to grind with brevis - let the footage people create speak for themselves. This review is interesting but like peter orland wrote i think it is entertainment at best, misleading at worst,. I do not mean to be disrespectful really. with all these adapter wars its silly. just post your footage and skip all these amateur "comparisons" or at least leave them to professionals in controlled environments. thanks

respectfully

joseph

[Dennis Wood]

Guys, every adapter design has its merits, and its problems. There aren't too many objective reviews of these products, but Richard owns both, and certainly paid full price for them. I will say this. Reviews like this, and early reviews like them from the beta group, have made our product better. Guys like Richard take the time to evaluate and test to the best of their ability...with nothing to gain, but the comments from those who read the reviews, and the personal satisfaction of doing the review.

Our goals have always been to provide and continue improving on, the best adapter that we possibly can, based on feedback from our customers. The end results are better, more reliable, and more professional products from everyone. That's not a bad thing :-)

[rgdfilms]

:Drogar-Smoke(DBG): :Drogar-Smoke(DBG): :Drogar-Smoke(DBG):


I don't see WHAT I really need to state here? Yes I did put my M2 up for sale but that doesn't mean I sold it. I still use both adapters. They both have their needs for different applications, I just happen to be a Run and Gun, guerilla shooter, so, FOR ME, the Brevis is better because of that. I'm pretty sure I stated that in my review clearly. I also stated that this was an unofficial test for my own purposes but some people forget that. And no one called the M2 a butthead, I don't know where you inferred that from.. Also to comment on the weight issue. I operate handheld all the time and have trained my eye to look at upside down imagery. It's easy for me to focus with these 35 adapters because the focus is so shallow, once your image IS in focus it becomes crystal clear on your LCD. :Drogar-Smoke(DBG): Yes I have held an ARRI cam, blah blah blah... I've also carried bags of sand for miles. The thing about the HVX+M2 setup is that it is awkward to do handheld work because there is no place to comfortably position it. I usually propped it up against my chest and that worked but after a full day on my feet, the unit eventually became a burden.. Try holding it handheld with the rods and baseplate and a Marshall all day.. What I meant to say about the semi-circle projection on the M2 Cinescreen was that there was greater edge falloff with respect to the top left and right of the frame because the HVX was only focusing on one slice of this big rotating pie. Go back and look at the vignette test. Zoomed out, the M2 image looks circular on the edges, whereas when I zoomed out of the Brevis for the first time, I saw a flat, evenly luminous frame.. I am sorry, I should have explained myself better on all accounts.


i agree with peter -i have been a lurker for a long time and this smacks of a bias. rgdfilms has already said he is selling is m2 so great - it doesn't meet his needs. it is hardly an unbiased view and rgdfilms should state that. that M2 butthead comment says it all for me

there are some obvious things that concern me on this whole thing like:

i have seen this no light loss before from redrock. it ended up that the physics created ghosting. I am very interested in seeing better tests that CLEARLY show this not to happen. Redrock was good about it and updated their adapter to fix this.

also, the semi-circle bit in the review is just flat wrong. 35mm lenses project a certain USABLE image size. As I understand redrock the ENTIRE usable frame is shown on that part of the adapter. why didn't you say that instead of talking something about vignetting? the tests on usable image were useless on this point .

then there's the weight. Redrock adapter is designed to be put on rods. they are up front that the entire kit weighs like 6 pounds with rods, rod plate and so forth. that to me hardly counts for "heavy". have you tried carrying an arri film camera around? also redrock could have used lighter carbon fiber rods, but they chose to use solid metal. it's built really well and can easily support a large lens follow focus and matte box. I do not believe it's fair to compare it to handheld. Many people (hundreds? thousands?) have used it with shoulder mount with reports of great results. I do not even understand the idea of using a DOF adapter and only handheld. How are you supposed to see it through the upside down viewfinder? how are you supposed to pull focus?? rack focus?


Don't understand what you're saying here..


then someone wrote something about "did you see such and so footage, it really made a difference for me" wow. have you seen some of the redrock stuff on here like the illegal footage? also other adapters too like P+S even though it is too expensive.

Once again, sorry if you and others read my review this way. I think a lot of people out there in the community, myself included, wanted a straightforward comparison between these two adapters. If I had the money I would have included the SGPro and the Movietube.. This review is meant to help those that are on the fence between these two adapters and I just happen to own both.. I've now owned the M2 for 7 months.. Anyhow, maybe one day we can be friends. :zombie_smiley:


I do not have any axe to grind with brevis - let the footage people create speak for themselves. This review is interesting but like peter orland wrote i think it is entertainment at best, misleading at worst,. I do not mean to be disrespectful really. with all these adapter wars its silly. just post your footage and skip all these amateur "comparisons" or at least leave them to professionals in controlled environments. thanks

respectfully

joseph

[jake stutheit]

i thought about which adapter to buy for a few months. i narrowed it down to between m2 and the brevis. on both respective websites there is incredible footage shot with both adapters and prosumer cameras. i think this argument / discussion is as to coke vs pepsi or marvel vs DC...with coke and DC being the obvious victors.

[Lenilenapi]

DC ? you gotta be kidding me!

[flipsidekrew]

Hey guskersthecat, just to clairfy you say there are 3 different defusers. the brevis used in this review used the standard defuser right, which is different from the Cinefuse 1 which isnt used in this test. I just want to know if using these other defusers will help out when shooting outside, because from what i saw in the video in order to have a shallow depth you have to open the lense, but in the process the footage is over exposed. Will using these other defusers help fix this problem? and also increase the DOF?

[rgdfilms]

The diffuser used in this test was the Cinefuse 1 which is great for low light conditions..

I realized a few days after I did this video test that I COULD have stopped down my HVX's iris to 5.6 - Instead, it was completely wide open because for some reason, that's what I thought it had to be at. With 2 ND filters, cutting out 4 stops of light, I still was overexposed with the Brevis shooting at f/4 with my Nikkor glass. If I stopped the HVX down, you would have seen a much better image, similar to the dynamic range you currently see in the darker m2. As long as you have a few ND filters, the Brevis works just fine outdoors with the standard cinefuse 1 diffuser that it ships with..

As far as the Coke, Pepsi comparison, I don't know about that.. Different adapters out there for different applications. In my humble opinion, the best stuff I've seen has come out of the P+S - The M2 is a great allaround go-to solution, it does the job, the company is all about interchangeable solid gear and it makes a nice picture, albeit for me, some softness and vignetting with my current lenses. The Brevis so far is the only lightweight portable solution out there and in that category it excels. Every shooter has their own taste, whether it be in their image style, portability or in their wallets.

[Lenilenapi]

Richard, Have you tried the P+S on the HVX? Is that what you thought looked better? i assume uyou didn't do a head to heade comparison with that though. What did you like about the P+S?

[flipsidekrew]

by bringing the stop down were you able to stilll maintain the same depth of field? Or by bring it down you lost noticable depth?

[rgdfilms]

Bringing the stop down on the HVX doesn't really change the DOF at all, it actually makes the image slightly sharper since the camera performs best between f/4 and f/5.6 - And no, I've never used the P+S and HVX but I have friends who have and I've seen there footage and it's always nice and pretty.. Plus the image is right side up, but personally I don't think its smart to buy one of those, rent it if the client wants it and get a brevis or m2 instead, depending on your needs..

[TimurCivan]

The mini35 is really nice but it eats too much light. we needed a 2k set up to shoot my friends short. and even then it was slightly under exposed.

[peter orland]

Guys, every adapter design has its merits, and its problems. :-)
What do you see as the problems with your adapter Dennis?

Pete.

[Dennis Wood]

Peter, basically high shutter speed grain and a bit more noise that I would like. Neither are major issues for 95% of owners, however it's still the 5% we want happy too. Fortunately, we have solutions for both in testing.

Later down the line (still in engineering) we are working on a very elegant movement that will have full user tailorable frequency and amplitude. This will allow inclusion of some option GG's for very specific needs. At that point there will likely be two products...one identical to the current model, and the fancy pants movement version.

[Andreas]

Hi Dennis,

rgdfilms mentioned in his blog shutter speed 250 for the vibration to start showing. Is this your count to ?

Thanks
Andreas

[Dennis Wood]

It depends on the diffuser used. I've got my test unit to do 1/500s just fine, but the drive system is not ready for prime time yet. There are a number of variables at play, but ultimately the answer to grain free, high shutter use, lies in a combination of specialized diffuser and some drive tweaks. We should have that sorted in a month or so :-) Having the XH-A1 as a test bed here in the shop was long overdue, and has already paid a few dividends in the "Cinefuse 2" final developement :-)

[TimurCivan]

Dennis have you considered an adjustable speed GG. this way you can have a "high speed" mde for high shutter work. and regualr speed for coventional shootin.

[Dennis Wood]

The new drive system has that ability to very finely control oscillation. I'm finding it very usefull, particulary now that I can test in-house on HD.

[TimurCivan]

cool

[DC]

Awesome, Dennis. Glad to hear the progress. :)


Later down the line (still in engineering) we are working on a very elegant movement that will have full user tailorable frequency and amplitude. This will allow inclusion of some option GG's for very specific needs. At that point there will likely be two products...one identical to the current model, and the fancy pants movement version.


This sounds very interesting. Might you estimate a time-frame for this? And price difference?

[Dennis Wood]

It's partially already done. I was going to hold off for another month or so, but based on my testing with Cinefuse 3, there is little reason not to implement the latest drive setup right away. The ability to tune the oscillations, as well as have the use of on-cam mics with 0 noise picked up, makes it a bit too compelling not to include in the current builds. I've also got a retrofit kit for existing users in the works this week.

There are extra costs both in time and material, but for now at least, we'll absorb them.

As far as the advanced drive system (independent frequency/amplitude control), we have some engineering/developement to do yet. I'd ball park six months. I've never seen even an unrelated application of the technology, so it's definitely new territory for all concerned. It will be modular, and there will be an upgrade path for existing users. Price difference is hard to guess, but I would predict $150 to $200.

[dolph2000]

Great, I think you have another buyer.
I was wondering if a nikon 18-200 f3.5 zoomlens would work.

[dolph2000]

Damn I just found out that this lens has no aperture ring

[Dennis Wood]

Most folks these days (me included) are looking for primes. A nice set would be 28mm, 50mm, 85mm and perhaps a 135. Optimally, nothing slower than f2.8 . There's some stunning HVX footage (http://homepage.mac.com/getken/hdtest/iMovieTheater49.html)from Ken Willinger using a fast Nikor 16mm on the Brevis. This is not the hot tip for shallow DOF, but a great lens to have in the collection.

These would combine to give both the best image quality and range.

[DC]

Optimally, nothing slower than f2.8.

So f1.4 is not so good? Can you elaborate a bit? I'm still very new getting into these 35mm adapters. My experience has always been with the fixed lens, unfortunately. Although I did have and use the old anamorphic adapter with the DVX.

[Lenilenapi]

DC, f1.4 is faster than 2.8. Dennis means anything that does not open that wide is not very useful indoors. Outdoors even 4.5 lenses are probably fine.

Dennis, does this mean I'm getting the new version? That sounds exciting. As my partner is a sound man, the quietre motor will go a long way for us.

Lenny Levy

[ozduc]

Nothing slower than f2.8


So f1.4 is not so good?

Huh?:huh:

[Dennis Wood]

Len, that's right. All units will have the new Nikon mount as well as the new drive system .... in-progress units too :-)

DC, as with most things photographic, fast lenses are usually more versatile. If you read up a bit on f stops, and aperture, you'll find that each f stop increase halves the light available to the camera/adapter. You want as much light as possible usable, so 1.2 to 2.8 represent fairly fast lenses. It's good basic knowledge to have, and applies to the video camera too :-)

[Lenilenapi]

Dennis,
Here's another question for you.
I assume you can use Nikon "D " lenses which have a smaller target area just by zooming in on the HVX lens. What if any are the downsides of doing this?
Do you lose resolution or exposure?

Similarely, if you use PL mt lenses like Zeiss or even Oct 19th lenses, the target area is smaller thus requiring you zoom in more. Is there a trade off on resolution by using lenses that have a smaller imaging area (analagous to blowing up from a smaller negative say)?

[DC]

Thanks. It was the term "slower" that threw me off. I realize f1.4 is a wider aperture and allowing more light in than f2.8.

[Christopher Barry]

external/thru the Brevis potentiometer, cool futurama Dennis.

[sotty]

Dennis,

Some questions, sorry if you posted this elsewhere. I have the M2, but really need something for lack of power lighting indoor and night scenes.

I'm on your website ready to order the HD bundle. Is there a more filmic
Cinefuse 3 about to be ready to ship? And when?


Also, how far out is the fulfillment of the HD bundle from time of order?

[dolph2000]

Most folks these days (me included) are looking for primes. A nice set would be 28mm, 50mm, 85mm and perhaps a 135. Optimally, nothing slower than f2.8 . There's some stunning HVX footage (http://homepage.mac.com/getken/hdtest/iMovieTheater49.html)from Ken Willinger using a fast Nikor 16mm on the Brevis. This is not the hot tip for shallow DOF, but a great lens to have in the collection.

These would combine to give both the best image quality and range.

I understand that. But is it possible with the Nikon 18-200, is there a great quality loss? I do a lot documentaries and sometimes my style is zooming, focussing and mostly I use the zooms and focus corrections while editing as a 'style'.

Another question. What does this set of primes costs

thanks very much

[Dennis Wood]

I'll try and get all those questions answered :-)

I have tested academy format lenses and yes you do need more zoom in room. The footage using LOMO cinema lenses and CINEFUSE 2 was very good, and this was using the GS400...not the A1. I'll be doing some testing with the A1 and the LOMO lenses and based on what I've seen so far, expect good things. That being said, the Brevis is designed to use an image size potentially larger than 36mm wide for 16:9 cams, and the vast majority of shooters are using 35mm format lenses. So you can likely use the smaller format digital lenses, but they would certainly have to be very fast, and there would be some tweaking to do.

Dolph, a set of reasonably fast primes from ebay..like a 28mm, 50mm and 85mm set of Canon FDs would likely run about 200 to 400 dollars depending on condition etc. I do have a 28 to 70 f 2.8 zoom which works perfectly. When you zoom to 200, effective aperture drops a great deal, so you either need a huge amount of light, or a very, very fast zoom to use the full range. I always suggest testing each lens and your camera carefully for sharpness at various f stops, edge fall off, and chromatic issues first before heading out to an important shoot.

Scotti, CINEFUSE 3 should be in the pipe by month's end. The first part of this clip (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=80577) from the A1, using C3 was shot using the light from a 2x4 window, (there's another 10 feet to the left) and no addtional light inside at all. The A1 was at f 2.4 and the 50mm FD at f 2.8, with camera gain at -3db. I hate noise, so I try to stay away from gain...in this case negative gain.

[dolph2000]

Thanks for your great explanation, it's more clear to me.

[Wayne Kinney]

I met up with Phil Bloom today in London, very nice guy indeed. We did a little testing with the Redrock M2, the Brevis35 and the SGpro R2. Phil will be doing a write up on that over the next week, with footage and res charts.

1 thing that I learnt today was how easy the Brevis is to setup and use, since you dont need to adjust any rods support! Nice work Dennis

[TimurCivan]

yea it is quick, screw it on and its ready to rock.

[Dennis Wood]

Thanks Wayne. It's just too bad I couldn't have been there for a some shooting and a brew or three :-) My goal with the adapter has always been to make it as user friendly as possible. With the new drive system, Nikon mounts, and particularly the latest diffuser, it's slowly maturing into a product that I'm almost 100% happy with.

Phil is doing some really great work there.

[DC]

Most folks these days (me included) are looking for primes. A nice set would be 28mm, 50mm, 85mm and perhaps a 135. Optimally, nothing slower than f2.8 . There's some stunning HVX footage (http://homepage.mac.com/getken/hdtest/iMovieTheater49.html)from Ken Willinger using a fast Nikor 16mm on the Brevis. This is not the hot tip for shallow DOF, but a great lens to have in the collection.

These would combine to give both the best image quality and range.

What do you think about a Nikkor-P (Nikon) 1:2.5 105mm?


(http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=185320)

[Dennis Wood]

An f2.5 105mm would be a great lens to have in the collection :-) I wish I had one.

[Abaddon]

the Brevis sounds pretty hot.

Is the image upside down as well?

[Dennis Wood]

Yes it is rotated 180, although our flip module for the unit is in the prototype stage. It is a discrete, removable module designed to work with existing units, as well as any other adapter :-)

[Abaddon]

Yes it is rotated 180, although our flip module for the unit is in the prototype stage. It is a discrete, removable module designed to work with existing units, as well as any other adapter :-)


Got a rough release date on that piece yet?

[Shadow]

I met up with Phil Bloom today in London, very nice guy indeed. We did a little testing with the Redrock M2, the Brevis35 and the SGpro R2. Phil will be doing a write up on that over the next week, with footage and res charts.

1 thing that I learnt today was how easy the Brevis is to setup and use, since you dont need to adjust any rods support! Nice work Dennis

When can we see that full testing, sound very interesting before digging into a choice for adapters.

[DC]

Yes it is rotated 180, although our flip module for the unit is in the prototype stage. It is a discrete, removable module designed to work with existing units, as well as any other adapter :-)

What is the approx light loss?

[robot909]

Just a note to M2 users... When you get your first lens, get a f2.0 or lower. I have a 28mm f2.8 and just picked up a 50mm f1.4, WOW! what a difference. The 28mm is outta here! It does pay off to get a faster lens.