Home made 35mm adapter.

TimurCivan said:
Yea i've used almost every adapter out there. Letus, Go35, Sgpro, Brevis35, Soon an M2...

Turnign the Detial to +7 will give you a sharper looking picture. without it looking too edge enhanced.
1155406668.jpg

1153854238.jpg

this is from an SGpro. ( my adapter of choice)

The image on top, is straightform the Camera with Detail at +7.

After CC, with a little tiny bit of edge enhancing sharpening, the image on the bottom is whatit can look like. The resolution is there, its just that most of what we percieve in video as "sharpness" is actually edge enhancement, and contrast.
Click to expand...


Yeah,
That looks good. I'm always trying to decipher just the right amount of sharpness one should have for that filmic look. I guess it's a matter of taste.
Jgastelb
 
what i do for indoor shots i place the cam on the tripod and film about a miniute without the subject in it. then place the subject in the same location as two seprete shots. Afterwards put it in ur nle and blur in post the shot without the subject and regular and wammo u have complete control in the shot of what depth of field you want. I don't like 35mm adapters that much. I have used a film in the past and no matter how many people tell me it the "film look" it will never be the same. This loss of light grainy footage just stick to the regular cam's capability. as you can see he did this without a adapter and it looks good. Sure if you had a 35mm it would be easier but who here has the money to spend (1000.00-15,000.00) to spend on this? might as well buy a film camera and not deal with the hassel. I personaly would rather buy essential things with the money such as a generator and light system. I have been seeing this in multi threds and never quite understood what people are claiming to be the "film look". I think what indi filmmakers have to consentate on is proper framing of the shots, lighting the shot well. composition, script, story line etc... . Nobody will get it to be exactly like film. It reminds me of this kid who once came to a samash store and bought a distortion pedal even thogh he couldint play a guitar. He thoght the distortion pedal would make him sound gooid because he liked the sound. If u dont now how to play no matter what u buy it will be horibble. Put a hi8 old crappy cam in a professionals hand and give a hvx200 to a starter and see who can produce a better shot. If your trying to make it big no one thing the bigtime people know what ur shooting with especialy if its dv. They understand that indi films are shot on low budjet. What they want to see is how you fram and tell the story. Look at that crapy movie blair which they made them reshoot it. They got lucky. But just remebr if you got ur art down thats all u need. All this waste of money will make u broke.
My english is way bad but i hope u guys understand this. I dont want you guys to end up like that kid buying distportion pedals like nuts thinking he will sound better. It's what techniques u bring to the plate that deferentiates u from the rest.
I think ncje prooved my point the best. Complements to your work awesome stuff dude.
 
yes, but if you're good at framing shots and creating artistic stuff, then why can't a 35mm adapter be used to give you a different look? it's just a tool like anything else. You saying we shouldn't use a 35mm adapter because it's not the same as film is like saying we shouldn't use a dvx because it's not the same as film. why did panasonic make the dvx with 24p mode? it's not film, yet we still use it! since we're already in the business of imitating film, why not use something else that imitates film, for instance 35 adapters?
 
look im not saying that noone should use 35mm. what im saying its alot of money and too much emphasis is being put on it when in reality theres ways to emulate it for free in post. I agree if you have 1000-15000 bux to spend on this cheers to u but these are not in the range of most users. If people start buying every little thing to imitate film, the art of being a unique filmaker is gone and you will be wasting way to much over ur budjet that it would be worth it to just go film. I love my dvx100b and am not flaming dvx at all. I just dont see what all the fuss is about a 35mm film emulation lense. Like i said if u got the money then cheers to u.
 
Cool this thread has some useful info nice work in the still tim. Little debate going on.... its all good I think.
 
The point of a 35mm adapter is not to slap it on and have instant DOF. The point, IMO, is to provide filmmakers using DV cams the same versatility as those using 35mm film cameras (in terms of DOF). Yes, you can change the apparent DOF with the DV cam by increasing the focal length of the lens and moving the camera back. And this is great for those that can't afford or don't want to use an adapter. Their are limitations in doing this though and it is not a very practical solution for shots with camera movement (dolly, jib, steadicam, etc). The most practical way to alter the DOF is by changing the aperture size. Of course 35mm adapters create many challenges for filmmakers: light loss, image orientation, etc. For prosumer DV cameras with small CCDs, I see adapters as a huge advantage for filmmakers.

In the end it is simply a matter of choice.
 
i like what u've done here ncje! your stuff is always really good. i enjoy it. I like this game u've played. nice way to show us newbie-dvx'ers the truth. as u said "jumping in ot 35mm adapter territory before they know all the possibilities" i know im on the verge of that... only thing keeping me from the ledge is money.
 
actually the only problem there is the spot focus that u get from an adapter. the possibilities of focusing on the nose and eyes of a person and just having everything else from ears and beyond blurred is amazing for creativity and filmic-appeal. DVX dof-manipulation is just that 'manipulation' and ergo is limited big time. (it does not have that softness of an adapters dof- dvx dof is alittle more...harder)
 
Vortex677,
Just FYI -- The trick you mentioned about shooting a scene without the subject and then adding the subject later to create dof is in my opinion very crappy looking. I haven't seen it pulled off yet. Maybe you're really good at creating this illusion but I would rather skip dof than do that because it's simply not convincing at all.
I do agree that some people here say things like "do I need to get a 35mm adapter? Where do I get it?" without knowing what it even does. I think the best way to get good at this is to take it one step at a time. In my case I have been researching and spending hours just on color correction and color grading. It's now after some months now that I'm starting to branch out into lighting techniques and audio. Not that I didn't pay attention to those things before or anything but that was my main focus for a while.
Jgastelb
 
I should point at that if I was shooting in HD I wouldnt hesitate to use a quality HD 35mm adapter. All I am talking about is an artisitic choice in one project on the assumption it will be shot in SD. And at the end of the day some people working with me on this may still push me to use it even on SD. But I think this was all good for debate in the end.. seems some people got something out of the many informative posts in this thread.
 
i use the 35 adapter becsuse i like the qulity it gives in terms of color and a non digital organic look.

infact when possible i keep the apeture small to get more DOF. it just makes working easier.
 
TimurCivan said:
i use the 35 adapter becsuse i like the qulity it gives in terms of color and a non digital organic look.

infact when possible i keep the apeture small to get more DOF. it just makes working easier.
Click to expand...

It's true... This seems to take away some of that way too clean image digital can have. Both are great but for me the filmic look is better with the adapters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top