Amazing film shot by Macgregor w/ DVX+Cinemek
- Thread starter rgdfilms
- Start date
deedive said:
THe brervis has NOThign to do with the Design charachteristics of the G35. the brevis is a vibrating adapter. the G35 beta is a static adapter. the Brevis is structurally closer to a Letus 35 than anyhting.
deedive said:
Yea but why should i have to sit there and "get used" to an adapter, when ther e are other options that work just as well if not better, out of the box flawlessly, like the brevis, SGpro, Go35......
JHouser said:
Oh hey cool! i hope its awesome.
deedive
Well-known member
I sorry timur but i had to say something when i thought it was incorrect.
i was talkin about image not design characteristics. Design characteristics have nothing to do with the image they produce. so saying they are basically the same i feel is not correct. you will get a different image.
And you might not have known but u can use a brevis as a static adapter. One of the reasons why it is so cool.
How much do you know about g35??
Are you saying the brevis and letus are the same also. incorrect. Put a letus on a camera shoot something then but a brevis on a camera and shoot something. They will not look the same. i dont think people care about how they work just the image they make.
come on, I've seen you get used to your sgpro man. And u get better with every film. thats how it is. the dvx works well out of the box but alot better when u know how to use it. And i didnt have the problems u did with the redrock out of the box but i did get better with it when i "got used" to it.
sorry if this sounds negative but i didnt want anyone misinformed. i wont say anything about the sgpro cuz i havent used it and as far as i know it is a great adapter so i feel funny when i hear something that negative about the redrock. why didnt have have the same problems if what u say is true.
TimurCivan said:
i was talkin about image not design characteristics. Design characteristics have nothing to do with the image they produce. so saying they are basically the same i feel is not correct. you will get a different image.
And you might not have known but u can use a brevis as a static adapter. One of the reasons why it is so cool.
How much do you know about g35??
TimurCivan said:
Are you saying the brevis and letus are the same also. incorrect. Put a letus on a camera shoot something then but a brevis on a camera and shoot something. They will not look the same. i dont think people care about how they work just the image they make.
TimurCivan said:
come on, I've seen you get used to your sgpro man. And u get better with every film. thats how it is. the dvx works well out of the box but alot better when u know how to use it. And i didnt have the problems u did with the redrock out of the box but i did get better with it when i "got used" to it.
sorry if this sounds negative but i didnt want anyone misinformed. i wont say anything about the sgpro cuz i havent used it and as far as i know it is a great adapter so i feel funny when i hear something that negative about the redrock. why didnt have have the same problems if what u say is true.JHouser said:
Would the static grain be "too obvious" in HD? That's my only concern with most static designs.
Would the HD version look similar to or better than what's been shot so far with the previous model (based on the showreel over at cinemek's website)? If it is, then great!
Although all these still leaves something unanswered. How would images shot on 35mm adapters (other than ps technik) hold up on the big screen? Anyone with enough experience on that would like to comment?
I'm excluding ps technik because I've seen images made with them on screen many times and I know "Illegal" was shot with the M2 and had a screening but I live so far away, I cannot see it in action.
deedive said:
YEa but Dale, you kinda cant compare image charchateristics. all the footage we see is so color corrected, shrunk down for web, compressed, squeezed, stretched... etc... Its really hard to judge which ones look similar, in terms of image. This is why Shawn, Ryan, and i wanted to put on that 35 adpter comprison test, just so the SAME camera with the SAME setting, shooting the same scene. only then could you begin to form that assesment.
Im still up for it BTW. Im just saying that all we really have ot go on in how sharp the seem to be, and their design grouping.
deedive said:come on, I've seen you get used to your sgpro man. And u get better with every film. thats how it is. the dvx works well out of the box but alot better when u know how to use it. And i didnt have the problems u did with the redrock out of the box but i did get better with it when i "got used" to it.
Well the reson i say this is, the M2 is somehwat difficul to set up, in terms of, changing lens mounts, adjusting the flange distance, etc. where as other comapnines have gotten with the program and made it simpler. ( though mnaybe the New M2's are differen, the one i used was a year old.)
Youre right about getting used to it in terms of useage, i should not have been so blunt on that point. like any tool you do need some experince.
Luzer said:
So long as its sharp it will looj good. I shot a film over the summer, on the OLDsgpro Rev1, an it looked really bad on the screen. Very very soft. Just watched Katrina, on a 60" 1080P tv and it looked even Sharper than it did on my laptop. So i presume it will hold up better on projection.
deedive
Well-known member
interesting point. never thought of it that way but i think of it from a different perspective. i have done some test with differrent adapters and what i look for is the image before color corrected, shrunk down for web, compressed, squeezed, stretched etc. i feel that is the most important image. i compare that. thats why most of the time i post tests they are uncorrected straight out of the camera with as little compression as i can.TimurCivan said:
after looking at alot of clips and doing tests of your own if possible you see the image charchateristics of the 35 adapter. thats why i can say letus footage usually looks alot different than brevis footage. i think most people after lookin at alot of footage can tell the difference.
deedive said:
Oh i agree. but even then, some people out there shoot with the MAster ped at -4, +2 etc... it all changes the way the gamma, color and black levels are represented.
In a perfect world, it would the same but sadly its not. thats what makes comparing the images of these thigns so difficult.
JHouser
Well-known member
No, HD was what I was referring to. All of our testing has been in HD.Luzer said:
Luzer said:
Yes, there will be no HD version. Just the G35.
It's impossible to quantify the sharpness of an image printed to 35mm without actually seeing the print on screen obviously. What I can say is that the G35 is as sharp if not sharper than any device out there. It will stay that way as long as it is not overtly abused. (I don't think I need to define that) No adjusting is needed by the user as it is static.Luzer said:
Alvise Tedesco
Well-known member
Wellcome back Jonathan.
I remember It was late at night here in Italy when Cinemek opened reservations and we were all excited....
In the meantime I bought an M2 and happily I shot a movie, commercials and some documentaries.
I'm in again for your G35!
I suppose I'll have to check the original web site, correct?
Best regards
I remember It was late at night here in Italy when Cinemek opened reservations and we were all excited....
In the meantime I bought an M2 and happily I shot a movie, commercials and some documentaries.
I'm in again for your G35!
I suppose I'll have to check the original web site, correct?
Best regards
Matthew Bennett
Well-known member
Lets hear a hooray for the possibility of great bokeh!! PL mounts??
yea Jonathan... PLmount?