m2 Adapter Users - Satisified w/ your investment?

I posted this on Hardware as well but maybe someone here had some advice:
I'm thinking about getting an M2 but am concerned about whether you can intercut footage shot with and without it. It seems like on some projects it may not be possible to get a shot with the adapter. Perhaps you just need to shoot in very low light or something will be shot by a different camera that can't get an adapter. There are any number of reasons why this might happen.
Will shots from the Redrock intercut Ok with stuff shot "clean"? What if it is part of the same scene?
 
Lenilenapi said:
I posted this on Hardware as well but maybe someone here had some advice:
I'm thinking about getting an M2 but am concerned about whether you can intercut footage shot with and without it. It seems like on some projects it may not be possible to get a shot with the adapter. Perhaps you just need to shoot in very low light or something will be shot by a different camera that can't get an adapter. There are any number of reasons why this might happen.
Will shots from the Redrock intercut Ok with stuff shot "clean"? What if it is part of the same scene?
Click to expand...

I don't have mine yet, but from all the stuff I've seen (including a demonstration from Brian Valente at Redrock) the entire image does seem to change a bit (better "bokeh" all 'round?). However, it didn't seem like it changes so much that you couldn't intercut. I think it really depends on how you're shooting. If you were shooting M2 wide open to get the narrowest DoF, then you cut to standard HVX where everything was in focus, that might be too much of a jump. But, if you shot wide with the M2 to get less DoF than you could with the HVX alone, and then shot the close-ups on the long end of the HVX lens and opened up, they'd probably match up nicely.

The other thing is, once the M2 is set up, It's probably just easier to add a light, or do whatever else was needed to keep shooting with the M2. The thing doesn't lose that much light, so adding a 150k might make the difference. That's probably your best bet.
 
If you were careful in what you were doing and what your setups were, you could intercut from scene to scene. I think you'd be asking for trouble, though, if your plan was to intercut shot-to-shot within a scene.
 
dougspice said:
If you were careful in what you were doing and what your setups were, you could intercut from scene to scene. I think you'd be asking for trouble, though, if your plan was to intercut shot-to-shot within a scene.
Click to expand...

Not really. I would assume you were trying to use the advantages of the really wide HVX lens or needed more light to shoot with if you remove the M2. Not a problem. The HVX at full wide (no zoom) looks a bit soft anyway. It matches up in texture just fine with the M2 CU and medium CU stuff.

If you were shooting out doors and ran out of sun light and needed to extend the camera a few stops to get the shots you needed by removing the M2 here is the problems you may face. You will never be able to duplicate the Shallow DOF you were getting with the M2. If you are shooting wide shots and or inserts you can get away with it though no problem.

I yanked the M2 off the camera a lot during my shoot. If I needed a cool wide angle shot or more light off it came. I shot all the CU's first if I was afraid I was gonna lose the sun. For hood mounted stuff on a moving car the M2 picked up too much vibration so Off it came. It's really not that big a deal. I can remove and or replace the M2 in less than 3 minutes. On the HVX it sits right up next to the box so there is very little tweaking. Point the camera at a well lit wall or white card. Focus on the GG and slap on a lens. I didn't even use Gaff Tape on the HVX focus because I like to double check the Back Focus before every shot. I found the focus ring would move slightly even with the tape anyway.

Don't fear this tool. Fear not having a good 1st AC and followfocus system. That is where you will lose more time on the set- missing marks. Actors included. It's hard for some actors to understand that with a 105mm lens from 4 feet back they have less than 1/2 inch of focus and when you say don't move your head you really mean don't move your head!
 
rgdfilms said:
This is a thread for both praise and constructive criticism regarding the M2 adapter -

Those of you that have used or purchased this adapter, please share your thoughts..

Is it worth the big expense, ($1000 for adapter, $300 for lenses, $1400 for onboard monitor) for the image you get over the stock HVX lens?

Do you see the M2 as total neccesity or would you consider it a luxury?

How many of you wanted the Cinemek but gave up?

I've been personally thinking of investing in one by the end of the summertime but still have my own reservations -

thanks DvxUDES !

:crybaby:
Click to expand...
$1400 for onboard monitor? Do you have to spend that much on a monitor to get sufficient results? I was planning on spending like $3-400 on a monitor. Am I in dreamland?
 
Thanks everyone.
Sounds like its not that big a deal. On the redrock forum they said a 1/8 Pro mist over the non M2 fotage would help the match a lot as well. Looks like I'll be spending more money again.
 
I'd still say it definitely depends a lot on lens choice. Some lenses are just not going to match up with the stock lens unless you're very careful to plan ahead.

That said, though, most people don't really care. We can sit here all day long and go "Oooh, lookit! There's fringing and CA at 0:16 into the piece!" but 98% of the world is just going to think "well that looks nice". So I guess it would help to step back into reality and keep perspective now and then.
 
Slimothy said:
$1400 for onboard monitor? Do you have to spend that much on a monitor to get sufficient results? I was planning on spending like $3-400 on a monitor. Am I in dreamland?
Click to expand...

Here's the deal. With the M2 and a narrow depth of field --- the whole point of getting the M2 --- focus becomes ultra critical. I don't know of a $3-400 monitor that would be good enough for critical focus. I can tell you that the Marshall 7-inch IS!

So, if you're going that last leg to get that "film look," I think it's the only way to go. Either that, or plan on keeping a 17-24 inch HD monitor right next to the camera at all times (good luck with that).
 
darwinandpaine said:
...plan on keeping a 17-24 inch HD monitor right next to the camera at all times (good luck with that).
Click to expand...

Not as hard as it may seem. I had a 24" monitor at my side for a whole shoot. Hand held, dolly, sticks. It wasn't the best solution but it worked. It really sucked for the guy how had to carry it for me. LOL
 
darwinandpaine said:
So, if you're going that last leg to get that "film look," I think it's the only way to go. Either that, or plan on keeping a 17-24 inch HD monitor right next to the camera at all times (good luck with that).
Click to expand...

You mention an HD monitor, what if I'm using it for my DVX. Will I still need such an expensive monitor? Tim.
 
Lenilenapi said:
Thanks everyone.
Sounds like its not that big a deal. On the redrock forum they said a 1/8 Pro mist over the non M2 fotage would help the match a lot as well. Looks like I'll be spending more money again.
Click to expand...


Just to clarify - what I said was that Mitch Gross posted on CML that he was checking out the M2 at NAB, that he liked it, and he said "it looks like putting a 1/8 black pro mist on the front" -

so I was suggesting based on Mitch's observation (and Mitch is a great guy - very knowledgeable) that might be a place to consider.
 
Slimothy said:
You mention an HD monitor, what if I'm using it for my DVX. Will I still need such an expensive monitor? Tim.
Click to expand...

That's a good question. Focus is less critical on SD, but I'd still think you'd want a really good portable (on-camera) monitor for pulling focus. When I get my M2, I'll try it out on both my HVX and DVX and let you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top