Brevis VS Letus
- Thread starter filming
- Start date
What do you mean by super 16mm quality?
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
It's "Brevis"
And they both will produce wonderful images is the right hands, and horrible images in the wrong ones. It really comes down to what you want in an adapter. Please do a search as this has been covered extensively.
And they both will produce wonderful images is the right hands, and horrible images in the wrong ones. It really comes down to what you want in an adapter. Please do a search as this has been covered extensively.
I understand what super 16mm film is, what I don't understand is what it is about the Brevis that you believe looks like super16mm film as opposed to 8mm film, 16mm film, 35mm film, SD video, HD video or cave drawings.
What qualities are you referring to? Color? Contrast? DOF? Resolution? Movement? Frame size? Aspect ratio? Subject matter? I just don't understand why you'd say that the Brevis has a super 16mm film quality to your eyes but other adapters don't.
Jason Ramsey
Admin
16mm dof is not near the same as 35mm dof, which all of these adapters approximate. They either do 35mm and some can go shallower still, so I'm not sure what would make you think one adapters dof looked like 16mm vs. another.
The look of the out of focus areas varies from adapter to adapter though, and (in the case of the Brevis) from diffuser to diffuser.
Color... seems that the camera will be the main variable in color representation, though the "thickness" of an image may be different depending on the diffusion qualities of the screen used in a given adapter. That *could* result in the colors seeming more rich in one adapter that has greater diffusion, vs. one with a screen that doesn't diffuse as much light.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at with the whole 16mm thing. If you want to approximate the look of 16mm as best as possible, you should get a 2/3" sensor camera, or build a DIY 16mm adapter and use 16mm lenses on it...
But, maybe I'm just not understanding you.
Later,
Jason
The look of the out of focus areas varies from adapter to adapter though, and (in the case of the Brevis) from diffuser to diffuser.
Color... seems that the camera will be the main variable in color representation, though the "thickness" of an image may be different depending on the diffusion qualities of the screen used in a given adapter. That *could* result in the colors seeming more rich in one adapter that has greater diffusion, vs. one with a screen that doesn't diffuse as much light.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at with the whole 16mm thing. If you want to approximate the look of 16mm as best as possible, you should get a 2/3" sensor camera, or build a DIY 16mm adapter and use 16mm lenses on it...
But, maybe I'm just not understanding you.
Later,
Jason
Tim Naylor
Veteran
Buy it. Use it. If you don't like it. Sell it. All these adaptors move pretty fast. If it's in mint can condition people will often pay full price just to bypass the wait time from the manufacturer.
None of them look like 16mm for a myriad of reasons (lattitude, DOF, colorspace, etc). But they all got good and bad points. Research it and toss a coin. I personally use a LEX though there are moments when I wish I had a different brand. Ideally, all three would be cool but that's not gonna happen.
Figure out what are your priorities, do you homework and then click "Buy Now".
Tim Naylor DP
www.timnaylor.com
None of them look like 16mm for a myriad of reasons (lattitude, DOF, colorspace, etc). But they all got good and bad points. Research it and toss a coin. I personally use a LEX though there are moments when I wish I had a different brand. Ideally, all three would be cool but that's not gonna happen.
Figure out what are your priorities, do you homework and then click "Buy Now".
Tim Naylor DP
www.timnaylor.com
@ Jason
What I mean about 16mm is they call these adapters 35mm but if they were really 35mm then they would give it an almost look a like of a 35mm film camera. The quality looks really outstanding but no way even close to 35mm camera. I personally think although the red one looks way ahead of any adapter it still does not come even close to any ARRI 35mm camera.
The looks of most of these adapters looks like 16mm and super 16mm quality or almost like it. Even super 16mm is a lot better. This is kind of like calling a HDD 300GB when in fact its only 280GB. That is what I mean. Why call it 35mm conversion kit when in fact it looks no where near a 35mm?
@ Tim
Thanks for your input. I think I will defiantly go with the brevis.
What I mean about 16mm is they call these adapters 35mm but if they were really 35mm then they would give it an almost look a like of a 35mm film camera. The quality looks really outstanding but no way even close to 35mm camera. I personally think although the red one looks way ahead of any adapter it still does not come even close to any ARRI 35mm camera.
The looks of most of these adapters looks like 16mm and super 16mm quality or almost like it. Even super 16mm is a lot better. This is kind of like calling a HDD 300GB when in fact its only 280GB. That is what I mean. Why call it 35mm conversion kit when in fact it looks no where near a 35mm?
@ Tim
Thanks for your input. I think I will defiantly go with the brevis.
Tim Naylor
Veteran
35mm DOF and 35mm lenses. Resolution and color space wise none are close to film. When you speak of film it's image quality has little to do with the camera (Arri vs Panavision) but more to do with stock, lenses, processing, transfer and DI. Yet all these links in the workflow must be maintained or your image is downgraded to the lowest end of the chain. The other issue which you may be getting a false impression is that most anything shot in 35mm will have a budget many times anything shot on a low cost adaptor which makes objective comparison dicey at best. However, I've seen and shot adaptor footage where legit producers will ask: "what stock is that?".
Anyway, let me know how that Brevis works out.
Anyway, let me know how that Brevis works out.
marco0782
Well-known member
The reason they are called 35mm adapters is that they let you use 35mm lenses and therefore have similar depth of field characteristics to the 35mm format. Obviously 35mm and even 16mm have more resolution than a high-definition camera, but these adapters let you achieve the look of 35mm which is most easily represented by shallow depth of field. 16mm has quite a bit more depth of field than 35mm.
Marco
Jason Ramsey
Admin
at the original poster:
I think you are misunderstanding the primary function of these adapters... They are probably more accurately referred to as DOF adapters. They attempt to approximate the DOF of 35mm frame sizes.
They DON'T magically make your footage take on all these different properties to make it look like 35mm film.
Their primary function is to allow users of small chip cameras to achieve a DOF that approximates 35mm dof rather than the very deep DOF of a 1/3" chip camera, for example.
But, if you are expecting to buy one of these adapters and have it turn your footage into 35mm looking film, it ain't going to happen. It's a workaround current technology and budget concerns of the indi/micro budget filmmaking crowd. And, it will have tradeoffs that you need to be aware of.
Later,
Jason
I think you are misunderstanding the primary function of these adapters... They are probably more accurately referred to as DOF adapters. They attempt to approximate the DOF of 35mm frame sizes.
They DON'T magically make your footage take on all these different properties to make it look like 35mm film.
Their primary function is to allow users of small chip cameras to achieve a DOF that approximates 35mm dof rather than the very deep DOF of a 1/3" chip camera, for example.
But, if you are expecting to buy one of these adapters and have it turn your footage into 35mm looking film, it ain't going to happen. It's a workaround current technology and budget concerns of the indi/micro budget filmmaking crowd. And, it will have tradeoffs that you need to be aware of.
Later,
Jason
To directly answer your question... it's about making money and, more than likely, what's easiest to build.
More people have and can get cheep 35mm lenses through ebay or an old collection they have from their closets.
Most people don't have access to 16mm lenses much less super 16 lenses... so if I was a manufacturer I would sell a 35mm adapter rather than a 16mm adapter.
same reason all manufacturers charge more for a PL mount.... that's an industry standard professional lens mount... shouldn't that be standard? Well no.. more people will have and buy Nikon SLRs so the adapter manufacturers lean toward the biggest markets.. the 35mm SLR lens market.
As for it being easy to build, I mean, it's easiest to focus on the size of GG that a 35mm lens fills rather than a 16mm/super 16mm.
The point of - just get one and shoot - is actually great advice,,, adapters have come along way... most any adapter on the market are built well and reliable.
Either adapter will be a great addition to your kit
More people have and can get cheep 35mm lenses through ebay or an old collection they have from their closets.
Most people don't have access to 16mm lenses much less super 16 lenses... so if I was a manufacturer I would sell a 35mm adapter rather than a 16mm adapter.
same reason all manufacturers charge more for a PL mount.... that's an industry standard professional lens mount... shouldn't that be standard? Well no.. more people will have and buy Nikon SLRs so the adapter manufacturers lean toward the biggest markets.. the 35mm SLR lens market.
As for it being easy to build, I mean, it's easiest to focus on the size of GG that a 35mm lens fills rather than a 16mm/super 16mm.
The point of - just get one and shoot - is actually great advice,,, adapters have come along way... most any adapter on the market are built well and reliable.
Either adapter will be a great addition to your kit
Tim Naylor
Veteran
You said it "film".