M2 owners: A question about lenses.

I repurposed that arm from my steadipod (which I can no longer use because the HVX is soooo much bigger than the DVX --- especially now, with all that junk on it).
 
darwinandpaine said:
Damn Haakon! Do you have unlimited amounts of talent in all fields? As someone who's made his living for the last twenty years in graphic design, I want you to know that the poster looks fabulous. Great job!
Click to expand...
Lol, "unlimited amounts of talent in all fields." Don't I wish!! :laugh:

Seriously though, that's amazingly kind of you to say. Thanks! I think I'm just drawn to all things visual... filmmaking, still photography, graphic design, websites, that kind of stuff. In some ways they're all kinda related. I feel lucky to be living in an age where computers and technology are around to help facilitate all of these creative desires so much!

I'm actually doing some original music for the film as well... that's sorta my other hobby. But I promise that's where all the "unlimited talent" ends. As it stands, I'm quite single. :-P

darwinandpaine said:
BTW, I don't remember, but that wireless follow focus was how much to buy --- for the whole shebang? Was it under $2k?
Click to expand...
The wireless FF was around $2K, but then you have to buy the motor, too - and that costs about $2K as well. So the whole thing was really like $4,000 (we rented it, I don't own it). For my personal situation, I can't afford $4K for a follow focus unit, but if I was a production company or something I would definitely invest in that one. It worked remarkably well.
 
darwinandpaine said:
Haakon,
I watched that licking clip again, and it's absolutely stunning. I'm prepared to worship you if you'd like.
Click to expand...
Haha, no worship necessary. :) I'm still exploring and learning all of this stuff as I go! It certainly is fun, though.

If you're free in August when we premiere the film, I'd love for you (and as many other DVXUser members that are interested!) to come watch! Although the film is pretty low budget (read: zero budget) and doesn't have backing or anything, I'm still really proud of it. I don't get many chances to put my stuff up on a big screen and I would love as many people to share in the experience with me as possible! :) I'll post more updates about it as we get closer... first we have to finish cutting!
 
Darwin, lol ofcourse I`m not shooting on a dslr bro, I own a Nikon F2. Also, your setup looks sweeeet! Can`t wait for mine to arrive! But man, you`re scaring me with that hotshoe attatchment for your Marshall lol.

Haakon, the poster looks smooooth, nice work man, you were such a quiet guy at dvexpo but then again, I guess many of the talented people out there are quite humble. :)
 
Haakon said:
I feel lucky to be living in an age where computers and technology are around to help facilitate all of these creative desires so much!
Click to expand...

Amen! And, well said.

Mr. Blonde said:
But man, you`re scaring me with that hotshoe attatchment for your Marshall lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it scares me a little too. The arm is great --- very solid. I'm more worried about the hotshoe poppin' off the HVX. It's not as heavy as it looks (I hope).
 
Regarding the breathing...
I have five Nikon primes I bought for use with the M2 --- 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f2, 100mm f2.8, and 135mm f2.8. All of them were fine with the exception of the 50mm (wouldn't you know it would be the fastest lens) --- it breathes like a chain smoker. It's fine for static focus, but racking is not possible. I'll be buying another 50mm. Anyone have any recommendations?
 
Darwin (and others)...given that the HVX is approx 32mm (35mm equiv) at its widest, is it then true that using a Nikon lens wider than 32mm will give you a wider fov? Is zooming in on the GG affecting this?
 
Last edited:
I find the HVX to have an fov very slightly wider than a 28mm lenson my Nikkormat not a 35mm. 28 is roughly = 4.35 on HVX
 
StMad said:
Darwin (and others)...given that the HVX is approx 32mm (35mm equiv) at its widest, is it then true that using a Nikon lens wider than 32mm will give you a wider fov? Is zooming in on the GG affecting this?
Click to expand...

Yes to both (I think?). A wider lens will give you a wider field of view. But, if you're shooting with an 18mm lens, you may not get exactly 18mm FOV because you have to zoom in a little more to capture the image on the ground glass.
 
Actually the HVX's lens at full wide is no wider than a 45mm, 35mm film lens.

Basically, 10x the HVX's lens readout = the 35mm equivalent.
 
Are you sure Mr Blonde? I got this from the Pana site

https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/sales_o/p2/hvx200/index.html


"Wide-Angle, 13x Zoom Lens
The Leica Dicomar Lens is a powerful 13x zoom lens designed especially for HD video recording. Extending all the way to 4.2mm (equivalent to 32.5mm on a 35mm lens), this lens covers the full wide-angle range needed in most broadcast and professional shooting."


Not sure if this is allowed, but I found this helpful pic on dvinfo...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachment.php?attachmentid=184&d=1148974737

After a year of owning an xl2, I've decided I need a wider lens. That JVC 13x is damn wide, but the stock HVX is very impressive too...even wider than the stock JVC lens with that WA converter (which works out to be 4.51mm compared to the HVX's 4.2mm)
 
There seems to be alot of confusion with these numbers.

First of all we are comparing a 16:9 HVX image with a squatter 4:3 or so SLR image so lets make sure we are comparing the same thing.
I am measuring the lens width not height, as that seems to be what we are thinking about re: FOV


Secondly, we need to distinguish between the FOV of a 35mm cinema lens and a 35mm SLR lens.
The field of view on an SLR is going to be wider since the 35mm SLR film runs on its side not vertical as in cine (which perhaps has to accomodate soundtrack as well.)
Some rough numbers from a table I downloaded
a 30mm SLR FOV = 16mm (35 cine academy)= 8mm (16 cine)
85mm SLR = 47mm (35 cine academy) = 27 (16 cine)

These numbers make sense with my own observations comparing my SLR with 28mm lens matching my HVX @ 4.3mm
That ratio seemed roughly consistent through the zoom range to 135mm = 22mm on HVX

If the M2 gives us aprox the same field of view as an SLR than the aprox ratio should be roughly 6:1

Never having used the M@ I can't say for sure that it gives the full SLR FOV.
If so though it means though that with an M2 we should get noticably less Depth of Focus than a 35mm cine camera.

These numbers seem way different than Mr. Blonde's though, so one of us is way off.
 
Last edited:
My test invloved taking out my slr Nikon F2 35mm camera, popping on a 50mm 1.4 Nikkor, and directly comparing the two at the same lens ditance.

I measured both diagonally and horizontally and concluded that a 50mm Nikkor on my F2 is equal to the HVX stock lens at 5mm, and at full wide, the HVX did not come close to the FOV of my F2 with a 35mm Nikkor on.
 
Well that's downright weird isn't it.
I'm only looking at horizontal FOV.
For me the 50mm Nikkormat looked like the 7.5 HVX
and the 35mm Nikkormat was close to about 5 on the HVX.

How could we have such different results?

Ar eyou looking at the HVX in 16:9 HD or trying to match the 4:3 SD image?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top