New footage from shipping version of Extreme

Chan Ee Jien said:
The bokeh looks like a donut. I read somewhere (trying to remember the referrence) that this is generally considered bad bokeh.

Please correct me if I'm wrong :(
Click to expand...

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh.html

This I just found - denotes true donut-shaped bokeh as containing a blockage of the light in the center of it - example is on the link

Considering the adapter just shipped and many people have paying work that may not include running out and testing every variable of a situation for our viewing pleasure, I'd cut the guys shooting some slack - good footage is here, good and better footage is coming, I'm certain - for natural light, Disjecta did a great job in showing what in the last few days has been the biggest concern; bokeh. I believe he's pretty much debunked any myths and what I am seeing is very comparable to film-like bokeh in I'm sure similar situations.

I think part of it is we're looking at test footage as well - if it were narrative, we'd all be looking at story matter (I'd hope...) instead of blasting the few minutes of footage we've been given hot off the shipping model.

I'm excited for mine to arrive - I've shot on the M2 and the Brevis and to date, this appears to yield a better picture - no two adapters are going to be identical though - pick your brush and go paint. If you don't like the brushstrokes of a particular brush, that's your free right.

-cheno
 
Steven, what part of the clip uses the 24mm? If possible, any idea of your range from the subject when using it?
 
The bokeh around the highlights might not duplicate that of an image resolved on a film plane, but I certainly don't find it objectionable or in anyway distracting.

Bottom line for me is that this adapter has produced some of the best looking and 'prettiest' footage I've seen from any adapter.
 
Quite honestly i'm not seeing an issue concerning highlights on steves footage that concerns me at all,on the cotrary as chenopup has stated this is, well i'll just say in my opinion some of the nicest adapter footage i've seen.
 
I can see you're enjoying the fall colours just as much as we are here :-)

With that lens, I'm guessing infinity focus is at just over 6 feet or so? Was it at f2.8, or dialed down a stop or two?
 
It was at f2.8 and I would say infinity was about 12 feet or more....not real sure because I was using many lenses and not really paying attention to actual distances. I plan on experimenting with the stops to see how far I can push it with the adapter.
 
FWIW

"bad Bokeh" is caused by the lens.... NOT the adapter. The only time the adapter plays a role in bokeh is how it trandsmits that part of the image. Which usually is pretty faithful. VERY thin GG screen that allow alot of light through tend to have a "murky" trandslucent looking bokeh, where GG's that lose more light have rich lush looking bokeh. Usually....
 
we had this same Discussion over at the end of the EXTREME SHIPPING thread and that's what my theory was. Another user did say that the Ground Glass effects the rendition.
 
T, yes and no. Our experience with the CF1, 2 and 3 line is that the imaging element does have a profound effect on how bokeh is rendered. It does not inherently change the behaviour of out of focus specular highlights per se, but it does definitley affect their size, apertures's affect on them, and the general blur of bokeh areas. We've done extensive research in this area, resulting in CF1/L, CF2/L, and CF3/L.

The range compression "effect" certainly is impacted by which imaging element is installed, and each has their own limitations with regard to usable aperture range. That's why some adapters out there can't be used beyond f2.8!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top