thefilmaddict
Veteran
I heard that stopping down on the HVX200 lens side somehow degrades the image and it's better to add ND instead while shooting outside in bright light. I may be wrong. Perhaps someone that already owns a Brevis will explain.
35mm Adapter Final Questions
- Thread starter thefilmaddict
- Start date
siniarch
Veteran
Eric: a zoom lens does work indoors, its just that they are ususally slower lenses and loose more light. therefore you have to light the scene like the cop's flashlight on your face when you were making out with your gf.
and yes, reducing the apperture reduces the light but it also affects the dof. so if you want to keep the same dof. then you need nd filters infront of your 35mm lense.
Filmboy: using the camera nd stops down the light from entering the camera, it doesn't stop the light from the 35mm lens to the Ground Glass (GG) where the image is projected. so the effect is different. if the projection on the GG is too bright then detail is loss. using the ND from the camera won't bring back that detail it will just darken the highlighted area on the image.
hope this helps. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. I always love to learn.
and yes, reducing the apperture reduces the light but it also affects the dof. so if you want to keep the same dof. then you need nd filters infront of your 35mm lense.
Filmboy: using the camera nd stops down the light from entering the camera, it doesn't stop the light from the 35mm lens to the Ground Glass (GG) where the image is projected. so the effect is different. if the projection on the GG is too bright then detail is loss. using the ND from the camera won't bring back that detail it will just darken the highlighted area on the image.
hope this helps. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. I always love to learn.
thefilmaddict
Veteran
That sounds right to me.
Barry_Green
Moderator
siniarch said:
This makes no sense to me. A ground glass isn't a sensor, it doesn't clip highlights, it doesn't have latitude, it's just a sheet of ground glass. How could you "overexpose" a piece of ground glass?
I just tried this with my L35FE -- I lit up a picture with a soft fluorescent light, no ND filter, camera wide open. Then I brought in a 1K fresnel, spotted in tight, and put it about six inches away from the picture. I had to put in both ND filters and also stop the camera down to about F/4, so that means that I lit the picture up to be about 256 times brighter than it was before. But it looked the same -- no blown highlights, no ground-glass exposure-induced weirdness...
So I don't get where this idea is coming from.
siniarch
Veteran
ok Barry, I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the Ground Glass is acting more like a rear projection screen than a lense. and the HVX is just zooming in and focusing on this Rear Projection screen. (Ground Glass)
so if you have a scene that is bright, and open your 35mm lense all the way, then the areas that are too bright will be blown out, engaging the ND filter on the camera will darken the image and bring down the whites, but it is my understanding that it wont bring back the detail. Or I am wrong in thinking this?
Its kind of when you take a photo, and adjust the brightness in photoshop. Then you save it. when you open it up later, even if you darken the image, all the pixels that went past pure white will have no information on them and darkening them will just make them look a solid grey. Obviously in photoshop we are using 8bit images in real life (ie. ground glass & Hvx) we don't have that limitation, so the results are not as pronounced because the blown out ranges are much larger.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
so if you have a scene that is bright, and open your 35mm lense all the way, then the areas that are too bright will be blown out, engaging the ND filter on the camera will darken the image and bring down the whites, but it is my understanding that it wont bring back the detail. Or I am wrong in thinking this?
Its kind of when you take a photo, and adjust the brightness in photoshop. Then you save it. when you open it up later, even if you darken the image, all the pixels that went past pure white will have no information on them and darkening them will just make them look a solid grey. Obviously in photoshop we are using 8bit images in real life (ie. ground glass & Hvx) we don't have that limitation, so the results are not as pronounced because the blown out ranges are much larger.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
Barry_Green
Moderator
It is acting like a projection screen, but there's no sensor or projector in the way, so what would blow out? Nothing blows out. Screens don't "blow out", only a sensor can do that. The image hasn't been "captured" by anything yet, so no limits on brightness have been established.
And anyway, I just ran the test, and made the image 256 times brighter than it was, and every speck of detail is still captured just perfectly.
And anyway, I just ran the test, and made the image 256 times brighter than it was, and every speck of detail is still captured just perfectly.
THANK YOU!!!! this is what ive been saying for a year. People keep insisting that you have to "properly expose the GG"..... its a linear light transmitter, it doesnt care how much light it gets.Barry_Green said:
thefilmaddict said:
i havet takem my Sgpro off of my camera since i got it. come to think of it, i havent shot stock lens in almost a year......
rapsucks
Well-known member
Someone mentioned something about stopping down the camera and the lenses.
As a general rule, your image will be better with both the lens and the camera stopped down at least one or two stops. Stopping down the 35mm lens helps the flange focus be a little deeper, which helps eliminate some of the edge blurriness that can be problematic in the adapters. Stopping down the camera gives a deeper depth of field for the camera, making it more likely that all of the ground glass will be in focus, which also helps eliminate edge blurriness.
I use EOS lenses, and thus have no control over the iris. If I were to do it over again, I would get a Nikon or Canon FL mount and then spend a couple hundred on a set of primes (35, 50, and 100 oughta be adequate). Older, used, manual lenses are pretty cheap on eBay or in pawn shops, and the quality of glass isn't really an issue when you're already downgraded from 35mm film to HD video. (If it was good enough for Annie Leibowitz and Ansel Adams, it's good enough for my HVX). I have the option of switching to a slower lens if I want it, so if you have a bunch of EOS lenses lying around (my director's wife is a photographer, so we did) then EOS might be the solution for you. (It's rare that you'll ever have too much light).
I would also definitely agree with having a monitor on set. High resolution is best. A follow focus is necessary if you ever want to pull focus during a shot. Unless your CA is amazing at turning the 58mm diameter focus ring while peeking over his shoulder at the monitor, you're going to want a follow focus. I would add a light meter to the list of things-to-have-on-hand. I know a lot of us video users get lazy and just use the monitor or onboard LCD, but having a light meter and knowing how to use it will help you make adjustments in stopping down the lens, camera, and in your use of ND filters.
In regards to matching native lens footage with adapter footage, it is possible, but you have to be careful. I wouldn't intercut them in the same scene, but you could shoot different scenes with or without the lens. I have a feature coming up, and I'm thinking about shooting the M2 with interiors and day exteriors, then taking it off for the night exteriors. I'm hoping the darkness of the night will help disguise the difference. In post I'm planning on adding some light grain and some mild white diffusion. I'm hoping that will mask the difference. Again, probably not enough to intercut in the same scene, but maybe. If someone developed the system of post-tweaking that would match, that would make for a good post. I'll try and go over some numbers with my DP. He's much smarter than I am. (Don't you hate it when your DP shows you two images and says, "See, isn't that amazing," and you're like, "Dude, those are the exact same.")
In short, having a 35mm adapter can yield great images, but it complicates things greatly. Don't expect to pull the thing out of the box, slap it on, and shoot like you're Conrad Hall.
That was a much longer rant than originally intended. Apologies.
As a general rule, your image will be better with both the lens and the camera stopped down at least one or two stops. Stopping down the 35mm lens helps the flange focus be a little deeper, which helps eliminate some of the edge blurriness that can be problematic in the adapters. Stopping down the camera gives a deeper depth of field for the camera, making it more likely that all of the ground glass will be in focus, which also helps eliminate edge blurriness.
I use EOS lenses, and thus have no control over the iris. If I were to do it over again, I would get a Nikon or Canon FL mount and then spend a couple hundred on a set of primes (35, 50, and 100 oughta be adequate). Older, used, manual lenses are pretty cheap on eBay or in pawn shops, and the quality of glass isn't really an issue when you're already downgraded from 35mm film to HD video. (If it was good enough for Annie Leibowitz and Ansel Adams, it's good enough for my HVX). I have the option of switching to a slower lens if I want it, so if you have a bunch of EOS lenses lying around (my director's wife is a photographer, so we did) then EOS might be the solution for you. (It's rare that you'll ever have too much light).
I would also definitely agree with having a monitor on set. High resolution is best. A follow focus is necessary if you ever want to pull focus during a shot. Unless your CA is amazing at turning the 58mm diameter focus ring while peeking over his shoulder at the monitor, you're going to want a follow focus. I would add a light meter to the list of things-to-have-on-hand. I know a lot of us video users get lazy and just use the monitor or onboard LCD, but having a light meter and knowing how to use it will help you make adjustments in stopping down the lens, camera, and in your use of ND filters.
In regards to matching native lens footage with adapter footage, it is possible, but you have to be careful. I wouldn't intercut them in the same scene, but you could shoot different scenes with or without the lens. I have a feature coming up, and I'm thinking about shooting the M2 with interiors and day exteriors, then taking it off for the night exteriors. I'm hoping the darkness of the night will help disguise the difference. In post I'm planning on adding some light grain and some mild white diffusion. I'm hoping that will mask the difference. Again, probably not enough to intercut in the same scene, but maybe. If someone developed the system of post-tweaking that would match, that would make for a good post. I'll try and go over some numbers with my DP. He's much smarter than I am. (Don't you hate it when your DP shows you two images and says, "See, isn't that amazing," and you're like, "Dude, those are the exact same.")
In short, having a 35mm adapter can yield great images, but it complicates things greatly. Don't expect to pull the thing out of the box, slap it on, and shoot like you're Conrad Hall.
That was a much longer rant than originally intended. Apologies.
darwinandpaine
Well-known member
Abaddon said:
I bought both mounts (Nikon and Canon) for my M2 because I have a Canon DSLR and some good lenses (including an "L" series lens). I NEVER use the Canon lenses. Not being able to set the aperture manually is just a pain. Plus, these old manual Nikon lenses are REALLY sharp. Every one of these cheap, old, used Nikon lense I've bought and tested with my Canon DSLR (using an adapter) is virtually as sharp as my best Canon lens (for which I paid a small fortune along with the rights to my first-born male child -- D'oh!).
It's not true though that the Canon's are always wide open. You can put them on a camera body (Canon SLR/DSLR), stop them down, and then put them back on the adapter (at least that's my understanding). But again, what a pain.
And I agree with Timur -- you'll never want to shoot without your adapter again.
rapsucks
Well-known member
I've heard the SLR-swap method batted around before, but I couldn't get it to do anything. If anybody has gotten this to work with the EOS lenses, I would love to know how. I think it does work for the FL lenses.
The problem with the EOS lenses is that they are controlled by the camera and the actuall aperture doesn't move until the picture is taken, then it snaps down to the desired F-stop just long enough to expose the film. Otherwise the image through the viewfinder would turn dark as you moved to a higher F-stop.
The problem with the EOS lenses is that they are controlled by the camera and the actuall aperture doesn't move until the picture is taken, then it snaps down to the desired F-stop just long enough to expose the film. Otherwise the image through the viewfinder would turn dark as you moved to a higher F-stop.
stopping down a bit is good. Mostlenses arent pinsharp at wide open. they need F2.8-F11 to be at theri sharpest.
Same for the DVX/HVX. I reccomend lighting till ou get proper exposure at F 2.8 on your adapter setup. this about a 1k setup. 1k key, 500w fill 750/1k BAcklight.
diffused of course.
this hsould provide you with an adequatly sharp picture even in 1080P.
Same for the DVX/HVX. I reccomend lighting till ou get proper exposure at F 2.8 on your adapter setup. this about a 1k setup. 1k key, 500w fill 750/1k BAcklight.
diffused of course.
this hsould provide you with an adequatly sharp picture even in 1080P.
Justyn
Veteran
I"m a canon still guy as well, but when I get my adapter I'm going to buy the nikons as I've heard what a pain this will be in trying to use canon glass.. Hopefully I"m going to get an adapter soon. I've been out gigging so.. any new developments in a test and reviews and comparison. I really like the SGpro look and some of the other ones are nice too. The redrock look like a solid company, but wonder if the smaller guys aren't just as good or so. What's everyones feelings on this?
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
I'm with barry on the overexposing GG business, unless someone can explain something i'm completely missing, its nonsense.
Of course i could be missng something.
Of course i could be missng something.
