CineFuse1 & CineFuse3 on the Brevis + HVX

Really? I thought the exact opposite. The edges on the 1st seem lighter than the middle. And regarding shutterblades? Not sure what you mean. Can you post an example of good bokeh (maybe from "Katrina") so I can compare? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
the out of focus circles (at least they are circles....) shuold be uniform with a slightly soft edge. thy shouldnt have like hot spots in the middle. or anyhtign like that. The HVX stock lens has TERRIBLE bokeh. Terrible..... lemme find you an example... wait a min.

as for iris blades im talking baout the pentagon shaped out of focus points of light in the barbie picture. the lens has 5 iris blades, thats what makes that shape.
 
mentatDUKE said:
Matthew, are you sure that Zeiss bokeh is really that much better than Nikon? It doesn't seem to add up.
Ken Rockwell describes "good bokeh" as such:
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you see perfect round disks your lens has neutral bokeh, if you see soft-edged shapes you have good bokeh, and if you see doughnuts you have bad bokeh."
Click to expand...

It's funny that so-called "bad or neutral bokeh" is the most common for cine-lenses to produce. I find it the most desirable because it really separates elements well, and has a certain 'prettiness' to it.
I think the bokeh in those shots looks great, the dvx has nice bokeh when you can get it.

As far as my knowledge of all bokeh producing entities in the universe, I am at the beginning of a lifelong journey and just taking my first few steps.
 
Timur, so you're saying the bokeh in the barbie pic shouldn't be hexagonal? As in the shape is too well defined? Also, I think you may be mistaken in your bokeh analysis. If you go to Ken Rockwell's site http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
and look at figure 3, you'll see that there is indeed a hotspot in the bokeh as there should be.

Matthew, I guess it's just a matter of taste, but I think the bokeh the Nikons produce is great and can't really see a strong case for renting or buying Zeiss (although I'd love to shoot with them one day).

I'm still convinced that I've found the holy grail in regard to bokeh once I began using the Nikon/M2 system.

I'd love to hear more points of view. Fun discussion.
Post screengrabs! :)
 
my analysis is my eyes. lol

But the hexagonal shape is a result of a cheap lens that has 5 iris blades. I hate when the points of light are renered as anyhtng but perfect circles with even distribution. personal preference.
 
Oh. I guess that's where we disagree. I love the hexagon shape. Love seeing the blades. In fact, a lot of films use the hexagon bokeh. I doubt it's really a sign of a cheap lens. But yeah. Bokeh is pretty subjective.
 
I'd like to see each test lit *exactly* the same. I'm having a hard time analyzing brightly lit footage and then a few seconds later looking at the very same shot, but several f-stops lower.

I dunno...maybe it is just me.
 
mentatDUKE - which Nikon lens did you use for those stills? Do you remember your aperture settings?
 
Timur, I have a question about lenses re: your comment:

"...the out of focus circles (at least they are circles....) shuold be uniform with a slightly soft edge. thy shouldnt have like hot spots in the middle. or anyhtign like that. The HVX stock lens has TERRIBLE bokeh. Terrible..... lemme find you an example... "

What do you mean by the "stock" lens in the HVX-200? Isn't that the only lens it can have since it's not interchangeable? (I know about the M2/Brevis, etc., but other than 35mm adapters, you can't change out the lens, right?)
 
GTP, I believe I used a 50mm on both. The aperature for the guy was wide open, and the aperature for Barbie was one stop down from wide open (f2.8) on a f1.8 lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top