Does Letus Extreme lose more light than Brevis

Marco your statement is totally baseless. Dennis already answer the DOF statement, so I am only going to answer the above statement.
Click to expand...

Wow, you don't have to be a jerk to disagree with someone or have a discussion.

Like Barry previously said unless Dennis came up with an innovating new system that actually produces gain rather than light loss, that would be an impossibility.
Click to expand...

Here are the facts I know, based on shooting 15+ short films and a feature with the Brevis:

1) The Brevis does not handle light loss the same as other adapters; each stop you go down on the lens does not reduce light transmission by equivalent stops
2) The Brevis with CF1 renders less bokeh at f/1.4 than the other adapters, similar to what the Redrock/SGpro/Letus render at f/2.8
3) This means that more appears in focus at a given f-stop than with the other adapters
4) And in conclusion, means that pulling focus is easy when you shoot wide open on the Brevis and therefore stopping down to assist focus pulling is not as necessary as with other adapters

When I shoot with the SGpro I find it necessary to stop down to f/2.8 when I need to make things easier on the focus puller. With the Brevis I could have left it at f/1.4. What this means is that the Brevis, which is already half a stop faster than the SGpro, now has an extra advantage relatively speaking because in the same shooting situation I will lose two extra stops of light in order to get more in focus with the SGpro.

If you don't understand that then you should test both adapters for yourself. It's really upsetting to find myself attacked when I only came on here to share my experiences to those who might find them helpful. And Barry should just put his assumptions on hold until he actually gets to test the Brevis. The characteristics of the way that the Brevis CF1 handles light are different than anything out there and he's just contributing to misinformation and confusion.
 
Last edited:
There's a lot to what Marco says. We tend to worship DOF on these pages, but most camera assistents live in fear of wide open apertures for good reason. An SGPro with beautiful bokeh using the SLR size framing, is operating with considerably less DOF than an ordinary feature film. I like the SG for interviews, but the Brevis has much to recommend itself for narrative. I've used it that way. That's when needing less light is more important too.


By the way whether you like the Brevis or not, Dennis has spent an incredible amount of time and money researching diffusing screens. I don't know how he can afford it actually.

Lenny Levy
 
Lenilenapi said:
What do you mean by 100% non-translucent?

Someone threw out that word as an explanation of why the exposure issue happens and now it seems its being used to describe the look of an adapter screen. I don't know if this a good choice of words as it implies that there is some light coming right through the screen and screwing with the image. I 've never seen that.

lenny
Click to expand...

The imagers used in all the adapters are "translucent"--that's how they work, so it's really the proper word. And yes, there is light that comes right through, but it doesn't necessarily screw with the image. It's just a fact of the optical system, and it can cause problems under certain conditions. Obviously it's not a big issue, because we see some awesome results from many of the adapters.
 
Dennis, that looked nice and sharp... again too bad it wasn't HD, but I saw quite a bit of detail on that other 720 you linked me to earlier. I am pleased with the image but I think I will like CINEFUSE better than CF2/3Le's for some reason... maybe all the mystery :)
I am hoping that the CF1Le and the Cinefuse will constitute the pair I am hoping they will be but I guess the CF2Le or the 3 might be something worth getting as a step in between? I dunno....

I was thinking about this and I thought about using the CF1 for wides and then switching elements (cinefuse?) and re-lighting for close ups, then I can get my gorgeous bokeh when I want it most and and I should have more available as the frame would be tighter... of course this doesn't work for all angles of all locations at all times of the day... but often I should be able to move in and crank up the bokeh... given that they match...
 
US - FYI, the "CF" in CF1, CF2Le, etc. stands for "Cinefuse." :beer: Dennis just has an ongoing R&D program to develop new ones. My CF2Le should arrive today -- can't wait to see how it looks, although work will keep me from it until later tonight.
 
marco0782 said:
Wow, you don't have to be a jerk to disagree with someone or have a discussion.
Click to expand...
Marco I didn't call you any names so you should not feel offended.

If someone is willing to claim something, then they should be ready for someone else to dispute their claim.

I never said that the Brevis was better or worst than any other adaptor including the one I own. People get personally offended when ever someone talks about their product that is not what they expect to hear.

That is why there are still directors that say that they would never use anything but film. Well guess what? Film is good but video has many advantages over film. Sometimes you can use film and some you use video.

The same goes for adaptors. There is not a do it all adaptor. You have to use the right tool for the job. You can claim what ever you want but it has to do what you say it does. Otherwise you are either knowingly or by ignorance, lying.

A 35 mm adaptor is not meant to do TV. It is meant to do film like. That is why it is important for a DP to know how to use meters. How else are you going to know DOP and lighting ratios before the video camera is set up? and, How would he know all theses if (s)he doesn't know the ASA rating of the camera that is being used?
 
If someone is willing to claim something, then they should be ready for someone else to dispute their claim.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but you are not disputing my claim.

I never said that the Brevis was better or worst than any other adaptor including the one I own. People get personally offended when ever someone talks about their product that is not what they expect to hear.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you did, and I didn't say anything of the sort either.

The same goes for adaptors. There is not a do it all adaptor. You have to use the right tool for the job. You can claim what ever you want but it has to do what you say it does. Otherwise you are either knowingly or by ignorance, lying.
Click to expand...

I was knowingly illustrating the job for which the Brevis would be the right tool.

A 35 mm adaptor is not meant to do TV. It is meant to do film like. That is why it is important for a DP to know how to use meters. How else are you going to know DOP and lighting ratios before the video camera is set up? and, How would he know all theses if (s)he doesn't know the ASA rating of the camera that is being used?
Click to expand...

A 35mm adapter can be used for a variety of reasons. I don't use it because I want to trick people into thinking that my digital footage is actually film. My reasons are:

1) I want the option of shallow depth of field
2) I want to use prime lenses of various focal lengths and from various manufacturers and time periods


If the Brevis doesn't treat light the same way as the other adapters that gives it a special advantage in certain circumstances and that is what I was trying to illustrate. I wonder why you haven't yet commented directly on what I said.

I have had terrific results in digital without any need for a light meter. I can see my lighting ratios on the monitor without having to calculate them with a meter. Zebras and waveform monitors make light meters kind of redundant to me.

Once again, I will try to state my point and if you want to discuss it feel free, but it is impossible to have a discussion if you refuse to directly address what I state:

The Brevis lets you shoot wide open where you would need to shoot stopped down on other adapters. This lets you get away with having less light.


Marco
 
Can't wait to Barry gets his hands on a unit, that way we can get illustrated examples of the advantage and if it is or not.
 
I don't think you need a meter at all if you have a pro HD monitor, but if you want to start creating when the camera is down then a meter can help you do this. However I am not able to spend that money for that benefit and instead I would try to get more lights since I don't have "20 small to medium lights" :)
Using the reflected light meter in the HVX together with zebras can help quite a bit though it would not be the same as a meter. But with zebras and a good monitor I feel you would be at worst in decent shape. If you can use On Location then you are basically solid but that won't be as portable as a meter.
All of these methods are great if you know how to get the best from them. As it was pointed out to me countless times here when I first embarked on this self-taught film school deal I am doing... it is about the operator and not the gear.

Just my 0.02... both of you guys added to the thread so don't argue with each other as you are helping each other analyze something together with everyone else by pointing out everything you see might play a role in this "new" phenomenon. It is good to discuss all sides. I know I am thankful for both your posts. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

For the sake of picking your adapter... how hard is it to find a set of used Zeiss primes?
 
Maybe about $20,000 if you are lucky. That's why people talk about the Nikon's here. There are Nikon/Zeiss lenses out there but they are not the same thing even remotely.
 
$20K? Wait a second...I'm looking at these three new Zeiss lenses at B&H for my LEX:

-Zeiss Wide Angle 28mm f/2 Distagon T* ZF Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR, $984:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/524035-REG/Zeiss_1486_409_Wide_Angle_28mm_f_2.html

-Zeiss Normal 50mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T* Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR, $492:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441695-REG/Zeiss_1405174_50mm_f_1_4_ZF_Manual.html

-Zeiss Telephoto 85mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T* Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR, $984:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441700-REG/Zeiss_1405176_85mm_f_1_4_Planar_T_.html

Are these not proper choices? They total $2460. Please enlighten...

Thanks
 
Ted Spencer said:
$20K? Wait a second...I'm looking at these three new Zeiss lenses at B&H for my LEX:

-Zeiss Wide Angle 28mm f/2 Distagon T* ZF Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR, $984:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/524035-REG/Zeiss_1486_409_Wide_Angle_28mm_f_2.html

-Zeiss Normal 50mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T* Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR, $492:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441695-REG/Zeiss_1405174_50mm_f_1_4_ZF_Manual.html

-Zeiss Telephoto 85mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T* Manual Focus Lens for Nikon SLR, $984:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441700-REG/Zeiss_1405176_85mm_f_1_4_Planar_T_.html

Are these not proper choices? They total $2460. Please enlighten...

Thanks
Click to expand...

as mentioned above these are the Nikon Zeiss lenses. Very nice, but not the Zeiss super speeds that cost a fortune.
 
thoes are Zeiss SLR lenses... they're essentualy the same a Nikkor AIS lenses, maybe a little bit sharper wide open, but essentualy the same.

Zeiss also make cinema lenses. a second hand set of about 5 Zeiss cinema lenses will set you back about 20k.


EDIT: DAMN YOU PHIL!!!!
 
I see...I didn't realize that we were talking about Cinema lenses. I'm aware that they're much more expensive. Sorry for the misfire...
 
Well I was asking about the Nikon mount lenses, not the SLR's so those are the ones I was asking about Ted.
I do want to have an SLR mount but I am in no rush as I first want to shoot a few shorts with my own lenses to get used to and get the most out of the adapter once I get it.

Is there anything else I should consider? Such as the nicer Nikkors...? Are the good Nikkors only the MF's? Which are the best Nokkors? I am not sure which to look at for pricing as there is a million different Nikkors out there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top