Euan
Member
Um, you seem to have misunderstood me. I haven't at any point suggested that film and adapter screens are equal in resolution. Instead I suggested that adapter screens have a higher resolution than a 1080 sensor.
Buying a lens adaptor now. Dumb?
- Thread starter Damodt
- Start date
Um, you seem to have misunderstood me. I haven't at any point suggested that film and adapter screens are equal in resolution. Instead I suggested that adapter screens have a higher resolution than a 1080 sensor.
Euan
Member
Of course. But with the option of deep or shallow focus, the filmmaker has a greater pallette with which to work.
Nick Walters
Mentholated Member
Does the D700 even do video? I didn't think it did.
As for the argument over end res and adapters.....yes every time you pass along the image, you lose resolution, but you really have to look at good individual adapters, using good lenses on the front, and being used by a good DP. Good equipment coupled with a good DP and an HVX-200 can look damn good, and the results can be achieved quicker then trying your damnedest to get some selective focus from the stock lens.
If you buy a cheap knockoff adapter, slap on the first 50mm f4 you can find for $10, and have no clue what you're doing....then I agree, the results will look washy, bent, out-of-focus, and basically be crap.
I think one person in the argument so far has been trying to convey that the amount of resolved resolution on the ground glass is so far above 1080, that the end result won't show much, if any, resolution loss. I think the other person has simply tried to convey the idea that YES some resolution is lost, thus there HAS to be some difference with the end image with an adapter vs. end image without.
You are both right.
As for being hoodwinked...this isn't right, or wrong...it's an opinion. I don't agree myself. I have an M2 and a couple lenses, and I love it. It has it's uses, and it has it's faults. Like anything in art, it is a tool with which we attain our vision. Use it wisely and it will be very powerful. Use it bluntly and you'll spend a long time polishing turds.
As for the argument over end res and adapters.....yes every time you pass along the image, you lose resolution, but you really have to look at good individual adapters, using good lenses on the front, and being used by a good DP. Good equipment coupled with a good DP and an HVX-200 can look damn good, and the results can be achieved quicker then trying your damnedest to get some selective focus from the stock lens.
If you buy a cheap knockoff adapter, slap on the first 50mm f4 you can find for $10, and have no clue what you're doing....then I agree, the results will look washy, bent, out-of-focus, and basically be crap.
I think one person in the argument so far has been trying to convey that the amount of resolved resolution on the ground glass is so far above 1080, that the end result won't show much, if any, resolution loss. I think the other person has simply tried to convey the idea that YES some resolution is lost, thus there HAS to be some difference with the end image with an adapter vs. end image without.
You are both right.
As for being hoodwinked...this isn't right, or wrong...it's an opinion. I don't agree myself. I have an M2 and a couple lenses, and I love it. It has it's uses, and it has it's faults. Like anything in art, it is a tool with which we attain our vision. Use it wisely and it will be very powerful. Use it bluntly and you'll spend a long time polishing turds.
I wasn't implying that. I meant that light/image information collected directly for an apple is going to be higher in resolution than light/image information gathered from an image (read 35mm adapter) of that apple.
I used the film plane as an example of an image gathering medium parallel to a video chip. Whether you put an adapter on a film camera(silly, but just hypothetical here) or on a video camera, there will be loss in resolution by the time the image makes it to the film plane or chip.
docrock
Active member
The only chance the sensor in the 200/170/5d2/...soon to come D700v (or whatever we're talking about) is going to receive a Down-Rezzed image (or less than adequate resolution) is IF and ONLY If the extender, ground glass, filter, lens, OR lens Adaptor is not capable of the maximum resolution of the camera's sensor. Can't we all agree on this? Secondly, there is NO screen in the M2 that the above camera is taking a picture of. "Screen" itself implies a certain resolution. It is a mirror and other very select optics, just like any lens you would put on your camera, or filter, or extender. I would agree that the weakest link in the chain will be in the optics, generally. Many times though, it's in the body. Shot correctly, the M2 on the 200 or any other camera it's made for is a phenomenal tool used for it's own purposes. I, too, shoot with the M2 on occasion. I have many hundreds of hours of stock footage to compare my "M2" footage with on my 200a and I gotta tell ya, the attributable loss of resolution is certainly no where near the 20% mentioned when going from 1080 to 720. I would argue we are within 1 or 2% loss, if that. Certainly, I cannot tell. And, as others have mentioned....it is a tool. If your photography necessitates it, you may use it 100% of the time, if not, maybe 10%....regardless, the DOF control alone is worth it considering the alternative "on camera" solution (IE, interchangable lenses) being MUCH more expensive, the M2 is hard to beat.
I would not argue, however, that there are shitty adapters on the market. Turd in, turd out for sure. The M2 is in an entire different category though. With excellent glass and an M2, YOU may be surprised at what you see
I am curious Jim, do you have any experience with them? You seem to be dead set on theory and "screen pictures...." just doesn't seem like you're talking from experience. You may want to look around and check out what some have done with the M2. You might be surprised.
J
I would not argue, however, that there are shitty adapters on the market. Turd in, turd out for sure. The M2 is in an entire different category though. With excellent glass and an M2, YOU may be surprised at what you see
I am curious Jim, do you have any experience with them? You seem to be dead set on theory and "screen pictures...." just doesn't seem like you're talking from experience. You may want to look around and check out what some have done with the M2. You might be surprised.
J
wgzn
Veteran
that is a bunch of horseshit. spoken (i presume) by someone drunk on specs.
its not all about resolution. if you want the true shallow depth look. its a style choice and an adapter is really the ONLY realistic way to achieve it.
again, its a style choice. and discounting it based truly on spec is like a painter refusing to work with anything other than one kind of brush. its a tool. an optional tool for a certain end result and to discount it simply on spec and workflow is short-sighted
ludicrous even, in my opinion.
Somebody's drunk. I never quoted specs. Just my opinion based on lower quality adapter images, compared to bare lens images that I have seen.
And it's not delusion that I am familiar with discussions on how one might match bare lens footage to adapter footage. I.E. degrading bare lens images to match adapter images.
What is the "true shallow depth look"? You're grasping at straws.
An adapter is not the only way to achieve shallow depth of field with the HVX200. The inexperienced would find it a daunting endeavor.
And it's not delusion that I am familiar with discussions on how one might match bare lens footage to adapter footage. I.E. degrading bare lens images to match adapter images.
What is the "true shallow depth look"? You're grasping at straws.
An adapter is not the only way to achieve shallow depth of field with the HVX200. The inexperienced would find it a daunting endeavor.
tony240sx
Well-known member
True an adapter is not the only way always, but in certain situations it can be. When you are in a tight space doing an interview, where it is not possible to be far enough away from the subject to zoom in and there is no space to place the subject far from the backround the limitations of the stock lens make it impossible to achieve depth. This can be done to an extent with lighting but if there is a tool like an adapter at your disposal why would a Dp avoid that.
Also I have never heard of anyone downgrading their footage to match an adapter. If adapter footage is drastically softer, it is most likely user error or poor focusing. Adapters and stock lenses have their benefits and downpoints and in conjunction can make incredible cohesive pieces. If you shoot over the shoulders one with an adapter and shallow depth of field and one without, there would most likely be a problem matching but you would know not to do this. An experienced DP knows when and where to use the benefits of each type of setup to create the look they need for the shot.
Also I have never heard of anyone downgrading their footage to match an adapter. If adapter footage is drastically softer, it is most likely user error or poor focusing. Adapters and stock lenses have their benefits and downpoints and in conjunction can make incredible cohesive pieces. If you shoot over the shoulders one with an adapter and shallow depth of field and one without, there would most likely be a problem matching but you would know not to do this. An experienced DP knows when and where to use the benefits of each type of setup to create the look they need for the shot.
I agree with Jim, and applaud him for saying so, that when using a 35mm adapter, you are sacrificing image quality for DOF control.
I think his argument about the resolution of the screen is off base, but the point is that you are capturing an image that is somewhat degraded. That degradation is minimal, but it's there, because you're capturing what amounts to a 2nd generation image.
As for whether to buy a 35mm adapter, I vote No. I posted several months ago that the arrival of the 5DM2 signals the beginning of the end of the 35mm adapter. Very soon, all camera will feature sensors that are larger, thus allowing DOF control.
I would pickup a GH1 or D90 for use when DOF control is important. It's a better investment.
I think his argument about the resolution of the screen is off base, but the point is that you are capturing an image that is somewhat degraded. That degradation is minimal, but it's there, because you're capturing what amounts to a 2nd generation image.
As for whether to buy a 35mm adapter, I vote No. I posted several months ago that the arrival of the 5DM2 signals the beginning of the end of the 35mm adapter. Very soon, all camera will feature sensors that are larger, thus allowing DOF control.
I would pickup a GH1 or D90 for use when DOF control is important. It's a better investment.
Jay Rodriguez
Coffee Member
I have a 170 and a brevis adapter and can say that when using them together I do get nice DOF but I also get a softer image. I hate the soft look but love the DOF. If I have the space to get that DOF without the adapter, trust me, the adapter stays home.
Nick Walters
Mentholated Member
I myself have been very interested in these new VDSLR's, but from all I see they aren't robust in the ways I need them to be in order to make them a good replacement. With a 200/170 I have two slots capable of handling 64GB cards, which store in a robust industry standard DVCPRO[HD], have all the controls I needs.....I switch over to talking about the HPX-500 and I have FOUR slots, genlock, timecode, shouldermount, etc, etc.
And let us not forget rolling shutter issues...tru Red seems to have solved this, but only on their products....Maybe scarlet will be a possible contender, but it'll be the first.
I'll take my CCD Panny's over the rest of the market any day....and with a M2 on the front.
For those that can only pay attention to the specs...I know you...I've met you!
"As soon as they come out with 'insert product here' I can finally 'insert creative outlet here'."
Gabriel Berube
Well-known member
Beginning of the end for 35mm adapters? Might be, but I'm not convinced about that since most adapter companies have proven very ressourceful in perfecting their adapters for HD. Just looking at footage from upcoming fiber-based gg, I think they still got a lot of life left in 'em. Adapters aren't dead yet, there are just different tools for different styles of users and each of us achieve what they want with the tools they find fit best for their workflow.
BTW, I love my HPX170+Brevis MP.1 combo and while I'm loosing some res there, I really don't mind as I think resolution isn't all there is to making a good short or movie.
Just my 2 cents.
BTW, I love my HPX170+Brevis MP.1 combo and while I'm loosing some res there, I really don't mind as I think resolution isn't all there is to making a good short or movie.
Just my 2 cents.
Nick Walters
Mentholated Member
I second the thought of different tools for different uses/users....and I'm definitely not trying to down play the VDSLR's. If I could afford one I'd be all over it! I just wouldn't have it be a replacement. I think if someone wanted to cover all the bases a VDSLR AND a Panasonic camera with adapter that takes the same lenses as their VDSLR would be a 1-2 knockout.
Of course some effort would need to be taken to finding a good way to match footage, but past the test shot phase where you figure that out, you could make some compelling footage. I think a good 108024pa on a Panasonic DVCPROHD cleaned/downrezzed to 720 used along side some VDSLR footage at 720 could work out pretty well...along with some messing around with each cameras settings to help match, then some final post.
But this all acedemic BS.....I think a better idea is to find some compelling work, scripts, co-workers,...all the core skills behind film...that's the stuff that matters...for all I care someone could make a film using a DSLR at 2fps and a good audio recorder, and as long as it was well lit, acted, implemented, shot, etc...I'd watch it.
Of course some effort would need to be taken to finding a good way to match footage, but past the test shot phase where you figure that out, you could make some compelling footage. I think a good 108024pa on a Panasonic DVCPROHD cleaned/downrezzed to 720 used along side some VDSLR footage at 720 could work out pretty well...along with some messing around with each cameras settings to help match, then some final post.
But this all acedemic BS.....I think a better idea is to find some compelling work, scripts, co-workers,...all the core skills behind film...that's the stuff that matters...for all I care someone could make a film using a DSLR at 2fps and a good audio recorder, and as long as it was well lit, acted, implemented, shot, etc...I'd watch it.