Nyc Sg Pro - Letus Extreme Shoot Out
- Thread starter Tim Naylor
- Start date
Tim Naylor
Veteran
Color Corrected Images.
Go to the 2nd page and you'll see a set of four images that have been color corrected to match as best as possible. This definitely helps in comparing sharpness and contrast.
However, when I look at the Nikon 80-200mm, I feel the sharpness is improved so radically that the SG comes out on top in terms of overall look.
Go to the 2nd page and you'll see a set of four images that have been color corrected to match as best as possible. This definitely helps in comparing sharpness and contrast.
However, when I look at the Nikon 80-200mm, I feel the sharpness is improved so radically that the SG comes out on top in terms of overall look.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Tim, I understand why you kept the detail at "0" for testing comparisons.
However it can be very valuable to see if a slight set-up change would eliminate what appear at first as deficiencies in one unit.
When I first tried the Redrock we thought - forget it its just too soft. Well then we got the bright idea to raise the detail and we started making money with it immediately. Ultimately still felt it was too soft though so i sold it and replaced it. But when I first put up the Brevis at the Redrock's ideals setting - It was too sharp! Didn't like it.
If you can discover that raising a point of detail gives you in practise the same level of sharpness and the detail difference doesn't bother you then you've learned something very very important. Then you can get the look you want. Bokeh and DOF can not be changed with camera set-up. On the other hand you may find you don't like the increased detail - generally its not too bad on the HVX.
Similarely someone commented on your tests that one adapter looked washed out compared to the other and he liked the colorimetry of the other adapter better. Well my guess is minor tweaking will make the color virtually identical.
In some ways a really perfect test would first show the unbiased differences between the units, & then would have you try to match the two looks as much as possible - to approximate what you would actually do in the field. Then you would be left with the real differences in the two units for practical shooting. (You did that with color correction in post on your images but probably would need to do sharpness on the camera.)
Its a lot of work which is why I'm glad you are taking the time - which I don't have right now.
Re: being tired of people hawking one or another of these units. I think its great to discuss all these comparisons. I just find the strident - "This is the absolutely the best adapter ..." stuff annoying, ill informed and unfair to these fabulous inventors. If you want to say - I prefer X because of y & z - great.
Too bad you don't have a Brevis over there because that offers a slightly more radical choice . SG & Letus are closer to each other I think.
Lenny Levy
However it can be very valuable to see if a slight set-up change would eliminate what appear at first as deficiencies in one unit.
When I first tried the Redrock we thought - forget it its just too soft. Well then we got the bright idea to raise the detail and we started making money with it immediately. Ultimately still felt it was too soft though so i sold it and replaced it. But when I first put up the Brevis at the Redrock's ideals setting - It was too sharp! Didn't like it.
If you can discover that raising a point of detail gives you in practise the same level of sharpness and the detail difference doesn't bother you then you've learned something very very important. Then you can get the look you want. Bokeh and DOF can not be changed with camera set-up. On the other hand you may find you don't like the increased detail - generally its not too bad on the HVX.
Similarely someone commented on your tests that one adapter looked washed out compared to the other and he liked the colorimetry of the other adapter better. Well my guess is minor tweaking will make the color virtually identical.
In some ways a really perfect test would first show the unbiased differences between the units, & then would have you try to match the two looks as much as possible - to approximate what you would actually do in the field. Then you would be left with the real differences in the two units for practical shooting. (You did that with color correction in post on your images but probably would need to do sharpness on the camera.)
Its a lot of work which is why I'm glad you are taking the time - which I don't have right now.
Re: being tired of people hawking one or another of these units. I think its great to discuss all these comparisons. I just find the strident - "This is the absolutely the best adapter ..." stuff annoying, ill informed and unfair to these fabulous inventors. If you want to say - I prefer X because of y & z - great.
Too bad you don't have a Brevis over there because that offers a slightly more radical choice . SG & Letus are closer to each other I think.
Lenny Levy
Ted Spencer
Veteran
As one of your fellow testers that day who expressed a preference for the LEX, I guess that would be me. I think Jamal agreed as well.
Part of my thinking in that regard is as it pertains to potential theatrical scale blow-ups on 35mm (or even DLP). While I will readily defer to your much greater experience in all things cinematographic, a concern I have is with the HVX's already somewhat soft-ish image, even in its naked state, particularly when in the Cine-like gammas. Compared to even its direct competitors (at least at 1080), like the Canon XLH1 for example (although it's admittedly a bit pricier) the HVX is at something of a disadvantage shaprness-wise.
When we're talking about higher grade Panasonic cams like the HPX 500, 2000 and 3000, a substantial sharpness increase is definitely part of the package. So I don't quite see how an HVX *losing less sharpness* from a lens adapter can ever be undesirable. Sharpness can always be reduced, but its upper limits are pretty much defined by the basic camera/adapter/lens combination's capability.
Taking a step even further, a modern 35mm film camera and stock will simply eat the lunch of any of these cams sharpness-wise, and I'm not aware of any complaints from the professionals who use them that they're "too sharp" to be effective. To be sure, many directors deliberately soften the look of 35mm by various means, often in post, but again that's a card that's great to be able to play when you want it. Not having enough sharpness in the first place could get very uncomfortable, particularly when certain kinds of post processing will cost you some anyway.
My thinking is also considerably informed by what I feel was a near-disastrous implementation of an HVX200 and a lens adapter in a recent feature (about which I commented extensively here, and still have some pretty conflicted feelings for being so harshly truthful about). Softness pervaded this film, and many critics commented on its poor image quailty. There were other factors at play in the problem to be sure, very significant ones, but it was a real cautionary tale in my mind: when shooting with an HVX200 for theatrical release, preserve all you can of your image quality/sharpness from the git-go or you might live to regret it.
I do agree that the SG's bokeh was nicer. It does have "all the right stuff" there, for sure, and it's no small consideration. And in one of your newly CC'd grab pairs on page 2 of this thread (the ECU one) the SG actually looks sharper to me. The other looks sharper on the LEX though, so it's pretty inconclusive. I do recall that we all thought the LEX looked sharper at the test. The upcoming SGPro flip version could certainly change the equation yet again, of course.
I agree that, as you stated in a more recent post, further testing is called for, and if you're game for it, I'll be happy to assist again. If we do it at Kwan's (is his actual name Emrom?) studio it might be nice to throw his Brevis into the mix as well since he's got one right there. If his place is unavailable, I'd be happy to host it here at my Upper West Side studio. I have a pretty decent bunch of kit that we can use in the testing as well.
So please let me know if you do decide to set up another comparo. I plan to buy an adapter early next year so I'm all over it. I'll look forward to seeing you again then, and perhaps meeting some more of our fellow NYC dvxusers.
Last edited:
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Ted, I see why you are very concerned about the sharpness difference then. I wasn't thinking about blow-up where you want to absoluetly minimize detail anyway.
You might consider waiting till all three have their flip implemented because I think that does seem to change the sharpness and flatness of field .
You might consider waiting till all three have their flip implemented because I think that does seem to change the sharpness and flatness of field .
Ted Spencer
Veteran
The notion of actually *reducing* in-camera sharpness for a subsequent filmout, while acknowledging that our esteemed colleague Barry Green advocates it, seems so counter-intuitive. I should probably search for some of the threads on the question. It's the opposite of what I would have imagined would be recommended.
Ya learn somethin' new every day on here, don'tcha... : )
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Well you need to separate real "sharpness" from electronic "detail" or "enhancement" circuits. Most film-out processes suggest keeeping the "detail circuits" lower than one might use if you stayed in video. So here absolute sharpness differences could be significant.
I would talk to whoever is going to do your film-out though.
I would talk to whoever is going to do your film-out though.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Did you see "28 Days Later" in the theater? It had so much in-camera "sharpening" (better known as "edge enhancement") that it looked like someone'd taken a black crayon and drawn outlines around everything. It was awful. But it sure looked good on DVD (at least, according to those who've seen it there; I only saw it on the big screen).
When Nancy Schreiber did filmout tests for November, she decided on using detail -7 (aka, detail enhancement completely turned off). And that was from a standard-def DVX100.
Point being, the smaller the display you're using, the more you can get away with artificial sharpening. The larger the display, the less you can get away with and the more obvious the artificiality of artificial sharpening becomes.
When Nancy Schreiber did filmout tests for November, she decided on using detail -7 (aka, detail enhancement completely turned off). And that was from a standard-def DVX100.
Point being, the smaller the display you're using, the more you can get away with artificial sharpening. The larger the display, the less you can get away with and the more obvious the artificiality of artificial sharpening becomes.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Exactly.
Tim Naylor
Veteran
In a comparative test you only try to have one variable (the one your testing) and all other conditions constant. I've been testing film stocks, lenses, video cameras for at least 20 years. Before I try to create an ideal picture, I need to test the variable's limits. To raise detail on one and not the other nullifies the comparison. Only after I've done a comparative test then I can truly understand what my camera, lens, etc can and can't do. Then I'll test another variable on its own - like detail. Concerning color, as I explained earlier, we screwed the color balance up on the SG using the wrong gel. It should've been matched which is why I later posted CC'd images, so I don't hear people crowing about color comparisons. If this was a paying job, I'd probably re-do all the tests because of the color balance screw up.
Regarding the Brevis, I owned one last January and sold by March after bad experiences with customer service, performance and build. I've been told they're better, perhaps I'll test one later (but I won't be buying it). Someone send me one and I'll take it through its paces.
I do think some products here are head over heels better than others and sometimes people on this site don't reveal all the weaknesses of a product because for whatever reason everyone's seems scared to offend or some folks don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. For instance, I never seen an in depth discussion about how the macro blocking on the HVX absolutely sucks and how to solve it. It's the main reason I'll be selling mine. (HVX book doesn't mention it - unlike the DVX book, which was cool because it pointed out your cameras flaws).
My experience with Brevis was so bad that I just sold it, wrote it off and vowed never to touch one again. At the time it wasn't ready for pro use, especially with a client around.
Not all the inventors of adaptors are "fabulous". I think some are clueless and others brilliant. Despite being a steal compared to PS or MTube, the money you pay is still good money, the price for a set of shocks. So none should be immune to scrutiny, criticism or in the case of gross negligence and quackery - run out of town.
Anyway, that's my rant. In the mean time, send me your test suggestions and I think I'll try to get a hold of Emrom's Brevis and do a three way (sounds kinky) test.
Tim
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Tim, Actually I've been doing the same kind of tests for probably about 20 years as well. I understand why you want to keep your variables limited because its very easy to look back and realize you screwed up the whole thing by not being careful enough.
Re: the Brevis, I haven't had your experience - mines been fine. On the other hand now that I remember I got mine in January then sent the unit back to Dennis with a number of complaints - particularely the collimation method. He responded by taking the unit back and actually redesigning a few things completely - especially the collimation method. That's why I rave about these guys. I see the same attitude in the manufacturers of the Brevis, the SGPro and the Letus.
None of them are perfect but I see continual improvements in all of them.
Lenny
Re: the Brevis, I haven't had your experience - mines been fine. On the other hand now that I remember I got mine in January then sent the unit back to Dennis with a number of complaints - particularely the collimation method. He responded by taking the unit back and actually redesigning a few things completely - especially the collimation method. That's why I rave about these guys. I see the same attitude in the manufacturers of the Brevis, the SGPro and the Letus.
None of them are perfect but I see continual improvements in all of them.
Lenny
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Could you post some screen grabs or clips that illustrate this problem? I understand what you're referring to, but I'd be very interested in seeing some examples of it that you've found particularly troublesome in you own experience with the HVX.
Thanks
That will be informative.
Last edited:
Tim Naylor
Veteran
What are you talking about? I was referring to macro blocking - has nothing to do with macro focus. Two unrelated issues. Macro blocking is that ugly digital tile/squares that you get when your chips just can't take it anymore. Shoot a purple wall lit to about a stop below medium grey. Light someone in front of it with some kind of high contrast bright light. Have them dance around and whooa.... the HVX descends into a vortex of blocky noise around your subject. Now make a DVD and put it on a plasma or lcd and you'll cry that your camera really blows under these conditions.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
eddavid,
When you get your Letus run another test comparing exposure at 1.4 and again at 2.8 if you can. I got just the opposite results from Tim with my SGPro Rev2. in my case the SG was a teeny bit faster.
Actually I consider them both close enough in speed that it doesn't make a big difference. (What's 1/4 stop?) The Brevis is a more significant jump faster though the bokeh may not be as soft for some tastes.
Lenny Levy
When you get your Letus run another test comparing exposure at 1.4 and again at 2.8 if you can. I got just the opposite results from Tim with my SGPro Rev2. in my case the SG was a teeny bit faster.
Actually I consider them both close enough in speed that it doesn't make a big difference. (What's 1/4 stop?) The Brevis is a more significant jump faster though the bokeh may not be as soft for some tastes.
Lenny Levy
Hi Tim,
Oups ! Sorry, you're right I misunderstood with my poor English. : )
You were refering to poor MPEG compression that give video artifacts and it is especially visible with fast motion sequences.
"Compression algorithms are very good, but not perfect, and sometimes the compressor inappropriately deems areas of the image to be less important than others. This typically affects the backgrounds of images, and particularly affects darker background areas of the image."
exemple
Tim Naylor
Veteran
It's even bad before going to MP2