35 Adapters

Interesting quote from the DP's of "24"

Cinemek: Our thoughts on this unit (the Guerilla 35, which is now called Cinemek) have to remain inconclusive. The unit we had proved to be unusable for HD/HDV shooting. Although we didn’t see the hair and dust on the G35 static ground glass straight away, it was there when we looked at footage on a 17in HD monitor. However, we had an early (probably preproduction) model, and the company is now completely redesigning the adaptor, and in the absence of it providing technical specs, photos or uncompressed frame grabs from its new design, we have to rule it out for the time being.

M2: This $500 unit was something of a shock. Who would have thought an engineering genius from Texas could design and set in motion a patent for his M2 adaptor that is actually quite suited to drama – and which is designed to work with old Nikon and Canon SLR lenses, of which there are legion sitting round the world gathering dust since the advent of digital photography, but which still feature exceptionally good optics?
The Redrock M2 is the only 35mm cine adaptor that exhibits a nearly lossless resolution and no image degradation, as there are no visible grains to throw a wrench into the MPEG2 HDV encoder. There is no artifacting and no soft edges.
The M2 can be notched down to T16, and I have even closed down to T22 with a Nikon 80-200mm SLR lens. No grain visible, no breakdown from MPEG and grain battling it out, and no visual loss of resolution.


http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?172
 
That's an interesting article. I was leaning towards the M2 (it is $650, not $500), but ended up buying a used Letus 35 Flip instead. After speaking with a lot of people about these units I chose the Letus because I can deal with the slightly softer image through increasing the detail level in the camera, and the flip function is just a great asset. I will receive it on Monday and will post a review of the unit as well as some footage within a week.

Jeremy
 
Waheed,
I can't speak for the other adapters but I own a M2.

When you attach it to your camera you don't get prefect DOF,you have to to optimize the setup.You might get fustrated the first couple times if your not used to disasembling your new tool, but the more you do it the quicker the setup till its second nature.My setup is with a old 1 chip JVC GR-DVM90 w/prgressive scan that sits more vertical than horizontal,and this thing still performs better than I expected.

I still keep my eye out on what the other adapters are doing,but Redrock has a great product in the hand of the users.

BTW I use the cinescreen an have no problem with grain unless I turn the gain up.
 
Thanx, you see actually now I am thinking if it will work with a SONY 900? I decided that is the kind of camera I am using for my next movie, they shot starwars with it. But I am not convinced that It has great depth of field, and I know I am gonna end up getting money to get the PRO35 adapter, but one thing i really really hate is the grain on that thing. Anyways, I will let you guys know once I have everything in place.
 
oh i hate film, mainly because I dont know film that much. And I dont get what I see, I mean what you see is what you get with video and film is different. I would have to hire someone that knows how to light and shoot for film. Am and HD dude, all the way.
 
Does anybody have any experiance using Canon FD lenses with an M2? I am seriously considering saving up for an M2 for use in the summer. I have 3 FD lenses that are not that bad, at least they work fine for my AE1 Program.

Also, completely unrelated, but related to the 24 article above. Rodney Charters was explaining DOF between the different formats and it all makes sense to me, but acording to his explanation 35MM motion picture film is smaller than 35MM still film, am I reading that correctly? I have zero experiance with motion picture film, but if is in fact smaller, how exactly can they call both formats 35MM?

Thanks alot, this thread has been quite educational for me.
 
Waheed AlQawasmi said:
oh i hate film, mainly because I dont know film that much. And I dont get what I see, I mean what you see is what you get with video and film is different. I would have to hire someone that knows how to light and shoot for film. Am and HD dude, all the way.
Click to expand...

I would venture to guess that a lot of directors don't "know" film, but they know DP's and they know film. I have heard/read that shooting super 16 with a DI can be very cost effective and yeild great results. Are you not planing to hire a DP for your HD production?
 
Waheed AlQawasmi said:
oh i hate film, mainly because I dont know film that much. And I dont get what I see, I mean what you see is what you get with video and film is different. I would have to hire someone that knows how to light and shoot for film. Am and HD dude, all the way.
Click to expand...

Ouch, that really hurts when someone says that. :( Film is so under appreciated these days, but Waheed, I do see where you are coming from.
 
Droog said:
Also, completely unrelated, but related to the 24 article above. Rodney Charters was explaining DOF between the different formats and it all makes sense to me, but acording to his explanation 35MM motion picture film is smaller than 35MM still film, am I reading that correctly? I have zero experiance with motion picture film, but if is in fact smaller, how exactly can they call both formats 35MM?
Click to expand...

35mm "movie" film is still 35mm (approximately) in size. BUt when you crop things down to a widescreen format like 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 the audience is seeing less of the 35mm frame than what is seen in a 35mm still. The original film is the same size, but the projected image is not the same. Here's an article that explains it a bit better and has visuals: 35mm film. Let us know if you have questions.
 
ovjamaica said:
35mm "movie" film is still 35mm (approximately) in size. BUt when you crop things down to a widescreen format like 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 the audience is seeing less of the 35mm frame than what is seen in a 35mm still. The original film is the same size, but the projected image is not the same. Here's an article that explains it a bit better and has visuals: 35mm film. Let us know if you have questions.
Click to expand...

Ok, so that makes sense. That article was quite helpful, thanks. Let me make sure I got it right though. Still photography utilizes the whole 35mm frame, while motion picture 35mm in some instances only uses a portion of it, therefore creating a smaller surface for acquisition and therefore having a deeper focal length. Meanwhile still photo takes advantage of the whole surface and as a result has a shallower DOF.

That article mentioned that anamorphic offers less DOF due to the lenses, but because it uses the whole frame how does it compare to a normal 16x9 matted motion picture frame. Does it come out about the same, or will it still have a slightly shallower DOF?

Thanks alot for all help on this. This has been great.
 
Droog said:
I would venture to guess that a lot of directors don't "know" film, but they know DP's and they know film. I have heard/read that shooting super 16 with a DI can be very cost effective and yeild great results. Are you not planing to hire a DP for your HD production?
Click to expand...

You are right, not alot of directors know film. WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY REFLECTS ME PERSONALLY, I am not speaking for anyone else.

Personally, I can never trust any one elses eyes to do my movies. Yes I might hire someone to do lights for me or run the camera, but for everything I do I have to pick my shots and I have to see what it looks like no matter what, and with film, you have to trust what your DP is seeing in terms of exposuer.

No I am not planning to hire a DP for my project, I am actually going to hire a camera Operator. I write, shoot, edit, and Direct my own movies and projects.

And to be honest with you another thing about film, and I should not have said I hate film. Film is KING, no matter what. But with all the technology latley, you are having to scan the film and put it into HD format to edit on, so I dont see the reason to shoot with film other than the DOF you get out of it. Grant it Film has more resolution but that is only a matter of time before they come out with HD that gives the same quality.
 
A still frame is twice the size of a movie frame. Movie film runs vertical and utilizes 4 perfs for a full frame, still film goes horizontal and uses 8 perfs per frame. 35mm refers to the width of the strip when held vertical, was used for movies long before it was adapted for still cameras.
 
dop16mm said:
A still frame is twice the size of a movie frame. Movie film runs vertical and utilizes 4 perfs for a full frame, still film goes horizontal and uses 8 perfs per frame. 35mm refers to the width of the strip when held vertical, was used for movies long before it was adapted for still cameras.
Click to expand...


Just to extend that a bit, 35mm was originally called "Edison Size" so that gives you an idea how long it has been around. I think the original Edison films were 6 perf, but other than that, its the same stuff :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top