What adapter do YOU OWN

What adapter do YOU OWN

  • Brevis

    Votes: 23 15.9%

  • Letus

    Votes: 45 31.0%

  • SG Pro

    Votes: 40 27.6%

  • M2

    Votes: 19 13.1%

  • PS Technik

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other/DIY

    Votes: 14 9.7%

  • More than one from various manufacturers

    Votes: 4 2.8%
  • Total voters
    145
Lenilenapi said:
Damn - you guys get so excited over this stuff. Of course the adapter's screen has an affect on the "look" and the way out of focus details are rendered. Is that technically "Bokeh" or should we call it "apparent bokeh" - who cares. its real , its absolutely observable and its not just the lens.

lenny Levy
Click to expand...

Sorry buddy but I call shenanigans, or at the very least a complete misunderstanding on how a lens works on your part. Bokeh occurs in the lens and is then projected onto the focus screen, just the same as the areas of the image which ARE in focus. So unless youre claiming that the different adapters reproduce the ENTIRE image dramatically different (which most people agree isnt true among the popular adapters), you cannot claim that simply the bokeh is dramatically different among adapters. Think of it this way, can you imagine someone coming on here and claiming that SGPro produces "artificial areas of focus" ... yea thats how fricking ridiculous the posters above sounded. Now that said, if someone wants to clearly state that they prefer the color rendition or contrast of one adapter to the other (which again also begins with the lens optics, though the adapter has more influence here) then that would be great.
 
Last edited:
tlew said:
So unless youre claiming that the different adapters reproduce the ENTIRE image dramatically different (which most people agree isnt true among the popular adapters), you cannot claim that simply the bokeh is dramatically different among adapters.
Click to expand...


Exactly - they reproduce the ENTIRE image differently and in fact most people agree that each adapter screen has its own characteristic look. Anybody who's compared them anyway. Even the depth of field is different with different screens. Its a fact whether you believe it or not or whether it fits into your knowledge base or not. Its not an issue of color but how the screen seems to diffuse the image. Makes perfectly logical sense.

Now is it dramatic ? - that's your call, dramatic enough to spark endless discussions here though.

BTW - I would appreciate a more respectful tone in your posts please. I guarantee I know at least as much as you do about this subject.

lenny
 
Last edited:
tlew said:
Apparently you probably dont know your "shiz" if you think that the adapter itself has any significant effect on bokeh. The quality of Bokeh (if you even want to call it that) has EVERYTHING to do with the specific Lens you attach to the adapter and its optical qualities. So unless youre testing every single lens available for your adapter, then testing those same lenses on another adapter its going to be pretty fricking ridiculous to even try to claim that one has "artificial bokeh" which BTW is one of the goofiest terms ive ever read online, rivaling some of the crap you hear on audiophile forums and used by companies as marketing taglines.
Click to expand...

I DO,

artificial bokeh, gaussian blur, hazy rendition, contrast... blah blah. The general "35mm look" that these adapters produce is a non realistic (artificial) 35mm feel. From my understanding its a combination of things: the GG, construction design, lens type etc... all contribute to quality of the bokeh and the DOF that people go crazy over.

I think artificial is a great word to use. As per wiki it says... "Artificial is something which is not natural..."
 
Last edited:
Oedipax said:
What vignetting issue, you mean with the HV20 + SGpro? I've got a 1.5" spacer ring wedged between my 43-52mm and 52-72mm step-up rings, works fine to get rid of the vignetting.
Click to expand...


okay tell me more, does this fix just allow you to zoom into the glass to get rid of vignetting, or does it actually remove the vignetting without having to zoom in too much? I tried searching the shoot35 forums and couldnt get a clear info whether or not extension rings fixed the vignetting issue. Also, there were hints that the flip may fix it, but I couldn't find any confirmation on this.
 
Ozan_Biron said:
artificial bokeh, gaussian blur, hazy rendition, contrast... blah blah. The general "35mm look" that these adapters produce is a non realistic (artificial) 35mm feel. From my understanding its a combination of things: the GG, construction design, lens type etc... all contribute to quality of the bokeh and the DOF that people go crazy over.

I think artificial is a great word to use. As per wiki it says... "Artificial is something which is not natural..."
Click to expand...

I wonder if this is just due to the inability to stop down the lens on a vibrating adapter. I've seen some sg footage that looked hazy, and I'm assuming it's because the lens was wide open.

Also, I think "artificial" would be taking an image in post and doing a blur filter.
Bokeh just means the out of focus area produced by a camera lens. So as long as bokeh is produced as such, it's real bokeh.

Personally I like the bokeh of all the adapters. Some more than others, but I wouldn't bash any of them.
 
I'll chime in here...

'Bokeh' is of course a by-product of the 35mm lens, however the amount and type of diffusion of the GG has a big impact on the way that is 'rendered'.

This is why I tried to introduce the term 'Bokeh Rendition' a year or so back as not to confuse the two.

Imagine the adapter and 35mm lens setup and shooting an object in the foreground, the background with a street lamp is out of focus and you can clearly see the aperture blades around the light.

Without changing anything other than the GG with different properties (more or less diffusion for example), the same image can have a much different look. If the GG has much less diffusion, the 'apparent' DOF seems wider because the GG is not diffusing the out of focus area as much and you can no longer see the aperture blades. Now imagine removing the GG completely - aha, everything is now in focus yet we have the same lens and settings.

This is the very reason why Dennis offers interchangeable GG elements on the Brevis - it changes the look!

This is why I urge people to use the term 'Bokeh Rendition' to describe the adapters impact on Bokeh. Otherwise we seem to get a clash of terms between users coming from a photography background and users that have more of a video background.

I posted this mocked up gif in a previous thread, showing the difference between the SGpro's GG on the right compared to the new glass GG that is being used as an option in the SGblade or the GG that is currently used in the Ultimate - note that this happens with the lens aperture wide open:

bokehdifference02.gif


The Bokeh Rendition on the right seems more natural, the left more like a Gaussian blur. Which looks best is subjective, the GG that produces the image on the left is grainless once spinning (therefore you can stop down the lens and use high shutter speeds), the right suffers a little more from grain past F4. Each GG has pros and cons and this is why we are offering SGblade users the choice between the two.

This is of course a mocked up version but demo's what I mean. We will soon be shooting a comparision between the two GG's - some focus pulls with the same lens and shot so you guys can really get a feel for the difference.
 
Last edited:
'Bokeh' is of course a by-product of the 35mm lens, however the amount and type of diffusion of the GG has a big impact on the way that is 'rendered'.
Click to expand...

besides the amount of diffusion, do you mind sharing the "type" of diffusion that gives the sgpro it's nice bokeh? Do you mean the type of material, how it's ground, etc?
 
Hi,

This seems to be down to the grain structure of the SGpro's current GG. As far as I am aware, this is unique - I have not seen the same from any other GG I have come across. It is very difficult to explain. If you hold any other GG in front of a small but bright LED (I am doing this with the 'on' LED of my PC speakers here as I type), with the GG about 10cm away from the LED, the way the GG diffuses the LED is in a Gaussian Blur fashion, bright in the middle and falling off toward the edge - kind of hazy.

Do the same with the SGpro's GG, and the way it diffuses the light from the LED is much different. It seems to have a nucleus and an outer ring. It is a very odd phenomena but the effect this has on projected image gives the SGpro it's unique aesthetic.
 
Last edited:
Further to the above, I have captured what I was trying to discribe:

GG_diffusion.jpg


The final effect that this difference in diffusion has on the image is demo'ed below, note that this happens with the 35mm lens aperture wide open:

bokehdifference.gif
 
Wayne's explanation is on-point as we would expect.
I agree also that we just need different terms here.
I've been pushing "Apparent Depth of Field" to distinguish from the lenses technical DOF. Also suggested "Apparent Bokeh" but I like Wayne's "Bokeh Rendition" again to distinguish from the lens Bokeh on neutral chip or film instead of a GG.

Lenny
 
Chill out dude. I'm just saying the Sg owners seem to be the most passionate about their adapters. Anytime there is a serious discussion about adapters the Sg owners always stand the most behind the image. Im a LEX user and love it but I know there is a compromise in image and bokeh to work at lower light. I think a lot of LEX users are that way. Sg users seem to swear by the image. There has been a lot of buzz about the LEX and probably more posts on it, but I think thats because its new and is useful in more situations as lighting is less of a factor. Barry Jumping behind it couldn't have hurt either. I used the M2 before the LEX and would say it does look more filmlike.

I was merely curious about how many people have the Ultimate because I think it is overpriced. Things are only worth what people will pay for them and thats not worth it to me. I'm also looking forward to seeing the sgblade. Your fervor for defending the sg is just the kind of passion I'm talking about.

Aerialsfilm M* said:
sg people the loud ones? dude, seriously, use the search function, you'll find a hell of a lot more noise about the letus than the sg. and who are you to judge? in the same post you're preaching the ultimate. yeah like you are not a loud letus user..

before you start judging an entire group of people, make sure you're not equal to those you're namedropping.
Click to expand...
 
Lenilenapi said:
Wayne's explanation is on-point as we would expect.
I agree also that we just need different terms here.
I've been pushing "Apparent Depth of Field" to distinguish from the lenses technical DOF. Also suggested "Apparent Bokeh" but I like Wayne's "Bokeh Rendition" again to distinguish from the lens Bokeh on neutral chip or film instead of a GG.

Lenny
Click to expand...

Hmmm... "Bokeh Rendition." Ight, I will agree with this term to distinguish this technical mumbo jumbo. Its a more subtle understanding and not has direct and misleading as this artificial bizness. Anywhoo, its all on the same topic.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be interesting to compare "bokeh rendition" of various adapters on a few scenes, but it is a pain in the butt to set up and I can't do it myself right now because I have an EX-1 that only works with 2. One important thing is to have a few different examples of overexposed "objects in the shot" i.e. lamps, light bulbs, windows etc. That's where odd things develop.

I do think you will see differences that in some cases may make some of those objects look "artifical" so in that way I will agree with some of you guys. I've seen halos around windows, lamps that became blobs, excess flare, even plastic like patterns in those overexposed images with different adapters.
Frankly I will also agree that I've found the SG screen to be the most pleasing and free of those problems. I haven't wanted to get into it without a real side by side test to show what I've seen so it remains anecdotal and I don't want to point fingers - also I'm not sure exactly what caused those problems when I've seen it.

In practice though on shoots I've pretty much never had a real problem with any of them so I would hesitate to get to worked up about it and make extreme charges. In the practical world they all make lovely images. Other pros and cons of the adapters could easily overide those issues for most people.

Lenny Levy
 
cool Wayne, thanks for sharing! The break up of the light glow, the dark lightless ring in the center seems to be what gives the bokeh it's contrast or hard/soft edge variation. Very cool indeed!

now what happened to all the brevis owners? I know there's got to be more than that, it's an amazing adapter!

edit; hmm now I see why there was an sg surge. Someone posted a link to this thread on their website, which just probably screwed the accuracy of the survey sampling.
 
Last edited:
When they first came out I bought an M2 for one of my DVXs. It was a lot of fun. Since then I see a number of other adaptors have come on the market. I likely would have tried a few but the Red One came on the market and that was it for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top