It's Time for a 35mm Forum Category!
- Thread starter a2zproductions
- Start date
TimothyJinx
Well-known member
mjmcneese2 said:
This is a great idea. I plan on purchasing an adapter within the next 6 months and it would help to know my options.
a2zproductions
Well-known member
Well...
what are our chances?
A.
what are our chances?
A.
Norm Sanders
Script Wrangler
Hey Folks, here's where it sits so far. The shoot out will be betwen the Letus35 Flip (Quyen's getting us his latest model), and the Wayne Kinney's SG35 ... should arrive tomorrow. Both units will be tested with Canon 50mm S.S.C. 1.4 lenses, on two seperate DVX100's, side by side, at the same time. So the side by side comparisons should be interesting for all.
Unfortunately, there won't be any static GG in the shoot-out. Only vibrating, and spinning. None of the static guys can have anything that's ready, and it's our requirement that those who participated in this fest (sub $1K models for the average member's pocket book) had to have commercially viable production models ready for purchase at the time of the article ... so we don't have members hot & bothered for a unit that may still go through further changes before it's finally released and/or simply be in a holding pattern for an undertermined amount of time before release.
As it is, several of the adapters that have raised a TON of interest, continue to be delayed for a multitude of reasons, and we simply don't want that in the mix with our results ... meaning, we print the article on DVXuser, and there's interest but nothing can be done because the unit's not available for purchase.
We'll be performing tests on resolution charts, rack focusing between two attractive ladies under dramatic lighting, as well as outdoor tests in both sunlight and night time (weather permitting), and anything else we can find to run them through.
Feel free to post/link this in the other threads as well. Testing will be performed this Saturday, and we should have the article up in less than two weeks afterwards.
Thanks,
Norm
BTW, if there's anything specific you guys would like shot for comparisons, please PM me.
Unfortunately, there won't be any static GG in the shoot-out. Only vibrating, and spinning. None of the static guys can have anything that's ready, and it's our requirement that those who participated in this fest (sub $1K models for the average member's pocket book) had to have commercially viable production models ready for purchase at the time of the article ... so we don't have members hot & bothered for a unit that may still go through further changes before it's finally released and/or simply be in a holding pattern for an undertermined amount of time before release.
As it is, several of the adapters that have raised a TON of interest, continue to be delayed for a multitude of reasons, and we simply don't want that in the mix with our results ... meaning, we print the article on DVXuser, and there's interest but nothing can be done because the unit's not available for purchase.
We'll be performing tests on resolution charts, rack focusing between two attractive ladies under dramatic lighting, as well as outdoor tests in both sunlight and night time (weather permitting), and anything else we can find to run them through.
Feel free to post/link this in the other threads as well. Testing will be performed this Saturday, and we should have the article up in less than two weeks afterwards.
Thanks,
Norm
BTW, if there's anything specific you guys would like shot for comparisons, please PM me.
Norm Sanders
Script Wrangler
There shouldn't be. Good idea, though, we'll throw them in squeze mode on the resolution charts, which I'd imagine would be the best place to do it to see if there's also res. loss with squeeze.
details would help the homebrew crowd
details would help the homebrew crowd
I was wondering if you would be able to conduct the emperical portions of your tests with enough accuracy that they could be repeated by those who have built their own adapters. IE, post the rez chart you use, and list distance to card (or LCD screen) when evaluating distortion and sharpness (I understand you'll be using one lens type as a standard). When evaluating sensitivity to light, reflective meter readings off known entities (ie. white paper, 18% grey card -- whatever) along with incident readings and recorded fstop readings could be used to compare all adapters -- whether it be you testing new adapters arriving in the future, or us conducting meaningful comparisons at home.
Grain tests could be standardized too -- for instance having a large sheet of backlit translucent material serve as a background while rack-focusing between two common objects at certain distances, or panning a string of objects in the foreground at a repeatable turn rate (like 5 degrees/sec -- it wouldn't be hard to pan 50 degrees in 10 seconds).
I think a lot of us DIYers would love to see how our projects stack up against the market. But without carefully specified conditions, it becomes difficult to objectively see which systems/technology offer the best quality.
And, as I'm sure you're too well aware, using still frames, or still cameras, is completely ineffective for evaluating grain.
I understand that some of your tests will be subjective (rack-focusing between models would not be scientifically repeatable without airline tickets, and a duplicateable shooting setup -- I understand that.)
Thanks.
Glen
details would help the homebrew crowd
I was wondering if you would be able to conduct the emperical portions of your tests with enough accuracy that they could be repeated by those who have built their own adapters. IE, post the rez chart you use, and list distance to card (or LCD screen) when evaluating distortion and sharpness (I understand you'll be using one lens type as a standard). When evaluating sensitivity to light, reflective meter readings off known entities (ie. white paper, 18% grey card -- whatever) along with incident readings and recorded fstop readings could be used to compare all adapters -- whether it be you testing new adapters arriving in the future, or us conducting meaningful comparisons at home.
Grain tests could be standardized too -- for instance having a large sheet of backlit translucent material serve as a background while rack-focusing between two common objects at certain distances, or panning a string of objects in the foreground at a repeatable turn rate (like 5 degrees/sec -- it wouldn't be hard to pan 50 degrees in 10 seconds).
I think a lot of us DIYers would love to see how our projects stack up against the market. But without carefully specified conditions, it becomes difficult to objectively see which systems/technology offer the best quality.
And, as I'm sure you're too well aware, using still frames, or still cameras, is completely ineffective for evaluating grain.
I understand that some of your tests will be subjective (rack-focusing between models would not be scientifically repeatable without airline tickets, and a duplicateable shooting setup -- I understand that.)
Thanks.
Glen
Norm Sanders
Script Wrangler
We'll post the details of what we did with regards to light metering, measurements/distance, etc. The nice thing is that we'll have the cameras litterally side by side, shooting & rack focusing, etc. at the same time. So I'll put up footage with split screens, etc. in addition to the stills ... because as you said, a still doesn't show as much as the live footage.
Waltind is more of the technical guy, I'm more the planner/wheeler & dealer of trying to pull things together for this sort of thing, so I'll see if he can chime in here as well.
Waltind is more of the technical guy, I'm more the planner/wheeler & dealer of trying to pull things together for this sort of thing, so I'll see if he can chime in here as well.
235 Studios
Veteran
PixrCtr said:
I don't forsee there being a problem with doing this. We'll record as much info as possible and try to make it as repeatable as possible. I think your suggestions are good, and could benifit others who whish to repeat the process. But it has been my expierence, that reality sometimes gets in the way, making it hard for others to repeat the process- i.e. we will be doing some shooting outside, which means that the sun will be moving changing the lighting, and not being well suited for someone else to duplicate later. But we'll keep detailed notes and let you know our process.
:beer:
Thanks, Norm and Ryan. Your offer to use standardized tests to compare these adapters, will be a huge benefit to everyone -- including those putting adapters on the market.
I've never seen mentioned the metered light levels of a certain scene and the camera's exposure settings for it, yet many times someone will talk about losing very little to no light when using an adapter.
When "no grain" is claimed, it can vary from whether it shows on a "broadcast monitor" or a computer monitor, or is really just "acceptable" no grain. (On that note, I've found it easier to detect grain by putting a small ink dot on the glass, so that my eyes can constantly be reminded how the grain is moving or not moving. And while some might say that's overkill, my interest is how much an adapter may interfere with motion tracking or key-pulling, etc.)
Then there's highlight bleed through -- rarely tested although often discussed.
I'd be interested to know at what shutter speeds motion GGs start showing grain, if at all, or at what f-stops a static adapters start looking like sand
Are you asking for items people may be interested in seeing in the experiments? If so, I'd also like to know how much audio noise is being generated, even if it's just by simply referencing it to a ticking clock or other common item.
Comarisons of a scene's contrast before and after putting an adaptor on would be interesting, as some have claimed that adding adapters increases exposure latitude (which I don't see how that could be -- I suspect the shadow details may be slightly washed out, but that doesn't translate to having more detail).
Some have stated that adapters make it easier on the electronics to record a clean image, because of a softening effect the adapter may have. That would be an interesting thing to evaluate, as long as the before and after pictures are equally stable.
I have seen, with wax adapters, that highlights clip along a much softer line than without the adapter. Would you be able to do some high contrast and heavy color saturation tests? In and out of focus?
These would all be interesting tests -- I really wish I could help out (even if it was just to stay out of the way, and bring coffee and donuts )
Anyway, good luck with it. I think it's a wonderful idea, and will be a huge contribution to the DIYers and the rapidly growing must-have-an-adapter community.
Glen
I've never seen mentioned the metered light levels of a certain scene and the camera's exposure settings for it, yet many times someone will talk about losing very little to no light when using an adapter.
When "no grain" is claimed, it can vary from whether it shows on a "broadcast monitor" or a computer monitor, or is really just "acceptable" no grain. (On that note, I've found it easier to detect grain by putting a small ink dot on the glass, so that my eyes can constantly be reminded how the grain is moving or not moving. And while some might say that's overkill, my interest is how much an adapter may interfere with motion tracking or key-pulling, etc.)
Then there's highlight bleed through -- rarely tested although often discussed.
I'd be interested to know at what shutter speeds motion GGs start showing grain, if at all, or at what f-stops a static adapters start looking like sand
Are you asking for items people may be interested in seeing in the experiments? If so, I'd also like to know how much audio noise is being generated, even if it's just by simply referencing it to a ticking clock or other common item.
Comarisons of a scene's contrast before and after putting an adaptor on would be interesting, as some have claimed that adding adapters increases exposure latitude (which I don't see how that could be -- I suspect the shadow details may be slightly washed out, but that doesn't translate to having more detail).
Some have stated that adapters make it easier on the electronics to record a clean image, because of a softening effect the adapter may have. That would be an interesting thing to evaluate, as long as the before and after pictures are equally stable.
I have seen, with wax adapters, that highlights clip along a much softer line than without the adapter. Would you be able to do some high contrast and heavy color saturation tests? In and out of focus?
These would all be interesting tests -- I really wish I could help out (even if it was just to stay out of the way, and bring coffee and donuts
)Anyway, good luck with it. I think it's a wonderful idea, and will be a huge contribution to the DIYers and the rapidly growing must-have-an-adapter community.
Glen
235 Studios
Veteran
We'll try to be as detailed as possible, although I'm not sure how many tests we'll actually get to preform, as the two actresses/models are voulentering there time- so we can't milk them too much ... may need to use them on future projects.
Thanks for your added thoughts and comments, I'll see how many we can fit in- lots of great ideas.
Thanks for your added thoughts and comments, I'll see how many we can fit in- lots of great ideas.
Alex.Flory
Active member
Ya, I definitely agree with you there. Where are the adaptors man?
235 Studios
Veteran
Krummi said:
I take it you are referring to the creation of a new category, and not the shoot out, as the shoot out can be found here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=50590