Review of Cinemek G35

Phillip-

Was that score from Les Vampires?

EDIT:
Just rewatched and saw the composer. Ludwig... duh.
 
philip bloom said:
Going to recompress tonight and fix the artifacts. Having weird issues at moment...with my computer too! :)
Click to expand...


Philip,

After putting the original 1080p version up on the big screen and with close inspection, the first scene does not look like artifacts, but in fact grain. At least on my 50" DLP, the dirty look is completely stationary, which is contrary to how artifacts would / should behave. The fact that there is grain is not totally surprising as this is, after all, a static adapter. Other adapters experience similar issues with sky when the 35mm lens is stopped down too much. And perhaps this was the case here as well with the G35. But I think it's fair to say that people have a concern about if or when grain shows up on a static adapter.

However, looking at the latest version you posted, I was dissapointed to see that the portion of the scene where the grain was clearly visible is now blacked out. I was hoping to find out that they were artifacts and that, through proper compression, they cleared up. Instead, it is blacked out, further adding to my suspicions that it most likely was grain.

IMHO, covering up the grain in this version doesn't give a true representation of the adapters abilities...good, bad or ugly.

Clearly, the G35 is a remarkable static adapter. But it, just like every other adapter, has limitations. With all due respect, isn't that the purpose of a review...to show the good along with the bad as they show up in your footage?

I could be over reacting as I've been traveling across the country this week and I'm pretty beat. If it comes off sounding harsh, it's not meant to be. Just concerned about the effectiveness of the review - especially for those that didn't see the original version.

Original version........................................................................ Current version
 

Attachments

  • G351.jpg
    G351.jpg
    358.4 KB · Views: 0
  • G352.jpg
    G352.jpg
    302.3 KB · Views: 0
I just looked at the original version on my 22" monitor... it looks like compression issues to me. The colors plus the pattern of the clouds looks 'digitized' to me, especially during the fade to black. The blocks were way too thick to be grain. I could easily be wrong, but it didn't look like grain to me.
 
mvansomeren said:
Philip,

After putting the original 1080p version up on the big screen and with close inspection, the first scene does not look like artifacts, but in fact grain. At least on my 50" DLP, the dirty look is completely stationary, which is contrary to how artifacts would / should behave. The fact that there is grain is not totally surprising as this is, after all, a static adapter. Other adapters experience similar issues with sky when the 35mm lens is stopped down too much. And perhaps this was the case here as well with the G35. But I think it's fair to say that people have a concern about if or when grain shows up on a static adapter.

However, looking at the latest version you posted, I was dissapointed to see that the portion of the scene where the grain was clearly visible is now blacked out. I was hoping to find out that they were artifacts and that, through proper compression, they cleared up. Instead, it is blacked out, further adding to my suspicions that it most likely was grain.

IMHO, covering up the grain in this version doesn't give a true representation of the adapters abilities...good, bad or ugly.

Clearly, the G35 is a remarkable static adapter. But it, just like every other adapter, has limitations. With all due respect, isn't that the purpose of a review...to show the good along with the bad as they show up in your footage?

I could be over reacting as I've been traveling across the country this week and I'm pretty beat. If it comes off sounding harsh, it's not meant to be. Just concerned about the effectiveness of the review - especially for those that didn't see the original version.

Original version........................................................................ Current version
Click to expand...

I understand your worry, but rest assured am not hiding anything. I was having compression issues. After all I have the original uncompressed film. It was coming up all blocky when I was converting to compressed MP4, the only way to avoid this was a really high bitrate. I didn't want this so I made my life easier and created a dark vignette. There still is blockiness if you look at the edges on this sequence. The problem is all the movement of the trees as well in this shot. There was so much information that to keep the bitrate and a downloadable size it was not practical.

I clearly stated in my review that static grain was clearly visible in the sky at certain f stops and they need to be avoided, stating that f4 was the safest option to stop down to if you wanted to avoid any chance of grain. In areas without highlights like sky you can stop down a little bit more!

It's a static adaptor so it will have limitations...
 
Last edited:
Philip,

It's not that I think you were intentionally trying to cover up the fact that there was grain. It's that now people don't have the benefit of looking at it and making their own determination. After all, what may be acceptible grain levels to some, may not be to others. So, even though you do state in your review that there is grain, since this is a still undisclosed GG technology, I think people want to see for themselves just what that means.

Personally, I think it would have been better to leave the blockiness so that everything is visible than to black it out for production value. This video was presented as part of the review. We all know you make some great looking videos. But in reviews, people not only want to see what's great footage you can obtain, but also some of the drawbacks as well.

In this particular case, since you had already posted one version, it probably would have been appropriate that you would have told us that you were unable to eliminate the blockiness and still have the video be practical to download, so you changed that scene. At least those of us who have seen both versions would know what's going on.

Stepping down from soapbox now :)
 
I agree and disagree. The short isn't technically part of the review. If it was I would be deliberately be showing shots where all the issues crop up. It's not a demo video, it's a piece of work and as a piece of work I need it to look as good as possible. That is what i was doing by fiddling with the beginning.

I am a perfectionist and only once have I posted a completely ungraded film, that was Magic Bus Stop for the SGBlade. There are people out there who shoot charts and do all the technical tests very well. My written review covers the plusses and minuses very well, with the film, I just wanted to show my work at it's best.

I do have some stills of the static grain I can post if people want to see, when I deliberately pushed it. But we all know that grain will appear in the sky with Static adaptors unless you open up the iris a bit, hence my recommendation of f4 no smaller. The stills you posted show blockiness, which was the issue, the grain looks nothing like that.
 
Last edited:
I've just looked again at the raw footage of that opening stuff, it's really not static grain, it's actually some XDCAM codec issues I think. I have a shot where I pointed at bright water and went from F8 to F5.6 and then F4 and you can see just about the static grain in the first two, but only if the image is moving, not in the stills. So there is no point me posting them.

There is static grain as I have said! Just open up to avoid it! The issues at the beginning of the film is not an example of static grain so by showing that then and leading people to believe it is static grain then that isn't honest. It's kind of a weird discussion this as we both agree there is static grain...my head hurts!! :-)

I don't want my little shorts to be demos of the flaws in each bit of kit. I want my demos to show the kit at it's best. I could have posted jello or noisy footage from the HPX but I didn't. I worked around the issues to create the best images possible. Same with the EX1 and 3, the Letus Extreme, same with the Blade....same with everything really! I always explain the downsides, the flaws, I just don't like having crappy footage up. Sometimes there are no downsides too by the way! What I do is show people how good you can get the footage to look...I think that makes sense!?
 
Last edited:
Okay, then it's my missunderstanding (and probably that of many) as you posted a link to the footage within your review, one would typically assume that it is a example...part of that review. Since apparently the video and the review are mutually exclusive, then there should be a statement to that fact. I'm sure I'm not the only one that made that connection.

I understand being a perfectionist, but Philip as I said before, we already know what you are capable of. I think most folks are more interested on seeing the ablities of the adapter you happen to be reviewing, not the abilities of Philip Bloom.

I guess we can just agree to dissagree on this point and move on. I know that in the future, I will continue to enjoy your videos, but keep in mind that any video that you post as part of your reviews are exclusive of that review. I hope everyone else keeps that in mind as well going forward.
 
It is an example...but not a video review. An example of what you can achieve with it. Not what you CAN'T achieve with it! So it is part of the review, as in it shows the kit being used by me and what I was able to get out of it.
 
wow! so anyway.

I can back Philip up on the grain issue, well to my best having not seen the footage straight off the camera.

I downloaded the quicktime and in the opening shots, IF there is any grain in there, you can't see it. Not through that blocky compression mess.

I have the G35, and when you see the grain, it's like fine sand texture. I have shot the sky with my Nikon 50mm at f11, and had the grain not be visible, but the sun was in the shot, and probably poured enough light in to hide the grain.

I've also shot the sky at 5.6 and had the grain be visible.

Some shots, the grain wasn't visible until I did colour correction that changed the overall contrast of the image, and revealing that grain was there.

So, some shots, if you need to close the aperture down say f8 and further, and you aren't seeing any grain on a monitor you trust, it may still be there. So be sure your image is where you want it to be. Don't go crushing your blacks in post, it might bring the grain out. Even with some shots at 5.6 if you have a deep blue sky with the sun to your back.

Now most of the time, it's likely you won't have the sky in the shot, and the objects in your scene have texture to their surfaces, you can close down further without the grain appearing.

and honestly it's unlikely you would need to close down past 5.6 when you still have the camera's iris to close down. plus it's well known that this sucker is light hungry.
 
Shibuya!!

Thanks...second opinion always helps!

I will be doing some more filming with the G35 next week and the new JVC if I can get hold of a 82mm to 72mm step down ring in time for Wednesday. Have ordered one online but they can't promise to get it to me in time!
 
Thanks, Shibuya. I agree with Philip that more opinions and observations are helpful.

The fine sand texture you describe is in fact what I'm seeing on my DLP monitor, even through the "blocky compression mess". It's stationary and doesn't move like the rest of the artifacts. Does that sound like it?

Your comments about your experience with the G35 are very helpful in telling us what the limitations are and what to avoid doing so that the grain doesn't become an issue. Especially what to avoid in post.

It seems that the G35 is capable of some very nice footage, especially nice bokeh. You just need to be careful in some situations.

From the pictures of the G35 it looks almost bullet proof in build quality. Can you confirm that?

The reason I'm so keen on getting the full spectrum of this adapter is because I'm thinking of recommending it to someone who doesn't get along well with things that have moving parts or batteries. This seems like it would fit this person's needs provided it can take a little bit of abuse.

Thanks.
 
Like Jonathan's banner ad says, Use it, Abuse it, it can take it.

I honestly can't say if what you are seeing is grain or not. I understand you believe it to be. I'm not seeing it on my monitor.

Of course you still handle with care, you wouldn't want to damage the achromat or lens mount. but the body is a nice solid piece of aluminum.

I love the bayonet mount. but, due to the weakness of the camera, you really should have a rod support set-up.

I will be putting up a post with my experience with it in another week or so. I know that doesn't help right now, but I don't have the time right now to get through all the footage I have shot so far. Plus I want to shoot some more first. The first stuff I shot is all handheld, and I was getting use to looking at the upside down image. So alot of it was more to see what did what with the image.

But give Philip a break. I understand his review may not have covered everything you'd like to know about the G35. But he did take the time to share his first couple of hours with the adapter. and offered an example of beautiful footage, what it's capable of.

that's part of what's taking me so long, I'm choosing to show where it's limits are as well.
 
thanks for taking the time to compile your review and great looking footage Philip.

Real world examples of how good it can look are MUCH appreciated!



: )

dmc
 
Shibuya Oboya said:
Like Jonathan's banner ad says, Use it, Abuse it, it can take it.

I honestly can't say if what you are seeing is grain or not. I understand you believe it to be. I'm not seeing it on my monitor.

Of course you still handle with care, you wouldn't want to damage the achromat or lens mount. but the body is a nice solid piece of aluminum.

I love the bayonet mount. but, due to the weakness of the camera, you really should have a rod support set-up.

I will be putting up a post with my experience with it in another week or so. I know that doesn't help right now, but I don't have the time right now to get through all the footage I have shot so far. Plus I want to shoot some more first. The first stuff I shot is all handheld, and I was getting use to looking at the upside down image. So alot of it was more to see what did what with the image.

But give Philip a break. I understand his review may not have covered everything you'd like to know about the G35. But he did take the time to share his first couple of hours with the adapter. and offered an example of beautiful footage, what it's capable of.

that's part of what's taking me so long, I'm choosing to show where it's limits are as well.
Click to expand...

I'll look forward to your review and footage. I want to show this person what to expect.

Interesting point about the rod support. My initial understanding was that the purpose of using the bayonet mount was that it was much sturdier than the filter ring mount and rod support wasn't as crucial. Of course, if you're going to use a FF you'll need rods anyway. Might as well support the adapter just to be safe.

As far as Philip goes, I do appreciate that he took the time to review it and shoot video. He and I just expressed a difference of opinion about the usage of videos in the review process, that's all.

Looking forward to more info.
 
you really do need rods. Especially on those longer lenses...also how else can you fit a follow focus!!

The Cinemek's limitations are similar to say the Brevis and Letus Extreme, but with more light loss but better build quality and tank like reliability.
 
the bayonet mount is convenient, plus it covers the focus ring, except one half inch space so you can still adjust focus.

I'm trying to figure out something to use on the zoom ring, to screw in place of the current peg, that has like a block of rubber to tighten down against the lens barrel. I definitely hit the zoom ring any time I shoot handheld, depending on one of the 3 ways I tend to hold the camera.

you might say to avoid holding it that way, but when you have been shooting for a while, your arms are getting tired, it's one of the ways to switch the weight and be comfortable again.

I know people use gaffers tape, but rather not deal with the adhesive building up on my camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top