I can't make up my mind: RedRock or Letus Extreme?

Brian, my aplogies. As far as I know, we're the only company that offers six choices of imaging elements to both change bokeh, and optimize frame width in excess of the 36mm standard. I do realize that the SGpro and M2 have replaceable discs.
 
Last edited:
I can say that all three of these products (M2, Brevis, Letus) are made by companies who really stand out as far as customer service goes. I own all three and whenever I had a problem or questions, each were very responsive and helpful. People may ask "If each one is so good, why do you own all three?"

Simple answer: I couldn't help myself. Plus, I rent out my equipment and some renters have preferences.
 
D, our customer service isn't really where I want it to be yet...but we're working very hard on that. Establishing VOIP phone services and bringing on a dedicated fellow for phone/email/pmail support was one recent change. Our new facility will add a dedicated SKYPE video support area so we'll be able to offer visual support for everything we sell. By hiring Hubert Den Draak, a 25 year film veteran (not to menton a very kind soul), we've added, German, Dutch and French to our capabilities on the spoken side.
 
Dennis Wood said:
D, our customer service isn't really where I want it to be yet...but we're working very hard on that. Establishing VOIP phone services and bringing on a dedicated fellow for phone/email/pmail support was one recent change. Our new facility will add a dedicated SKYPE video support area so we'll be able to offer visual support for everything we sell. By hiring Hubert Den Draak, a 25 year film veteran (not to menton a very kind soul), we've added, German, Dutch and French to our capabilities on the spoken side.
Click to expand...

Dennis,

Good to hear! I do have to say you were extremely helpful when crunch time came and I needed my Brevis fixed (mostly caused by user error). Thanks again for that!

As I said above, it's great to have choices and you can't really go wrong with any of them (again, it's a matter of preference and each one has it's own pros/cons).
 
Blaine said:
Don't get either. Save the money and spend it on getting good actors, :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Fortunately I was lucky enough to get good actors for my feature (even dealing with SAG has been uncomplicated). It's true... these adapters can do a lot for the image, but the image has to be worth shooting in the first place.:smile:
 
Dennis I think we are talking at cross purposes here. Having an interchangeable screen is great for future-proofing, and we embrace that. As pointed out, we are confident (and many others have also pointed this out) the current cinescreen produces the most filmic look. Should we develop one we think is improved we can release it to be easily upgraded, as we have in the past


regarding actors, thinking about the impending wga strike, it may be that good (and unemployed) SAG actors may be more easy to come by, especially for non-union jobs. Or wait, is that covered under SAG bylaws? :-S


Brian
 
Last edited:
philip bloom said:
I have never owned an Sgpro. I only saw it during my shootout. Is was a very nice adaptor from what I saw.

I used a Nikon F2 DC 105mm lens, quite an expensive bit of glass, for the shot of me and the other shot was using my Zeiss 85mm f1.4. That's the Zeiss in the photo.

So the glass is about as good as you can get for a Nikon mount.

I am not overly concerned and it is a very minor thing for me. So many great things about this new adaptor sweep over the negative things.
Click to expand...

Hi Philip,

Are you also getting this kind of light smear when you use these lenses with the M2 or Brevis?
 
What kind of "light smear" are you talking about? Is it the kind of bloomning around an overexposed light that you would get say from a pro-mist or something different?

-Lenny
 
Lenilenapi said:
What kind of "light smear" are you talking about? Is it the kind of bloomning around an overexposed light that you would get say from a pro-mist or something different?

-Lenny
Click to expand...
the smear here on these pictures

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1084989&postcount=8

philip bloom said:
I now have my extreme to go with my m2 and Brevis (!). My camera of choice for 35mm adaptors has been my JVC HD200 but I haven't been able to get a satisfactory mount with it and the extreme, but here it is on my z1. Very impressed with it, not so pleased with the smear on bright out of focus highlights.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bvalente said:
Having an interchangeable screen is great for future-proofing, and we embrace that. As pointed out, we are confident (and many others have also pointed this out) the current cinescreen produces the most filmic look. Should we develop one we think is improved we can release it to be easily upgraded, as we have in the past

Brian
Click to expand...

Hi Brian. Nice to hear that.
Happy for an affordable mattebox and all of the coming RR accessories, but an IMPROVED cinescreen would be MUCH more interesting.
Improved could also be same lightloss as the "lowlight" one you had in the past with the quality of the actual shipped one...
Cheers
 
Ok now the "smear" thing is really quite important to me actually and is one of the more subtle aspects of bokeh.
In my experience it doesn't have to do with the lenses being used, but is a function of the diffusion screen. How the diffusion screen handles very bright objects.

In some cases like say the Redrock and a lesser extent I think the on the SGPro it does look somewhat like a promist. In fact in the heavier screens in general you will have a softer image, less DOF and more "halation" which I think is the right word. This can be good or bad depending on your taste. It can be very pretty or look like you slapped a diffusion filter over the lens and that will depend on how bright your overexposed object or lights are in the picture.

The Brevis CF1L as I remember doesn't have hardly any halation which is in keeping with its sharper cleaner diffusion screen. That's not neccessarily always a plus mind you, it depends on what you want. With the CF1L it comes with a bit more DOF and greater speed - pluses and minuses depending on your goals. Frankly I now have a Brevis and an SGPro for both looks. Kind of expensive way to go though.

The CF2L which you don't hear too much about for this reason had a "smear or halation " quality I didn't like as it didn't feel natural, almost like you could see the grain pattern in the halation. The CF3L on the other hand is pleasing - more like the DSGPro and the Redrock.

I can't tell enough from these pictures to evaluate it on the Letus Extreme. I'm just pointing out the nature of the issue and it is one very important thing to keep in mind when evaluating and choosing one of these adapters. Overexposed objects should look very pleasing because you'll have a lot of them with any adapter.

That's my 2 cents.

Lenny Levy
 
Halation on specular highlights is my personal pet peeve with adapters and why we worked so hard to make sure CF1/L does not display any of it. It's one of the those bokeh issues that I find very distracting during focus racks.
 
As I mentioned, I'm not for it or against it in principle, I just want to have some control or at least like the quality of what I'm getting. The mini35 as I recall also had noticeable halation. I guess all thing being equal I'd rather not have it imposed but have the choice to add it with say a filter.
It does seem to be (at least so far) a given with the heavier screens that lose more light and have least DOF. No free lunch i guess. As I recall the CF3L also had some halation didn't it?

Halation that looks like a pro-mist is at least pretty though. What you don't want is something that looks artificial.

- Lenny
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top