comparing shutter limitations

[johnsalazar]

i have been compiling a table to help with deciding which 35mm adapter to buy, similar to the one in this area of the forum. but i am unable to find shutter speed limitations on most of the adapters, the ones i have found were on the manufacturers page and im sure are push more towards being ideal (with an expensive/fast lens) than actual. (yes id love an letus ultimate, but i definitely cannot afford that)

i have manufacturer speeds for brevis ("1/250"), g35("unlimited") & M2e("1/500")

if someone could help me out with the blade & elite (or correct the ones i have) it would mean a great deal & be very much appreciated.

thanks so much

(here is what i have so far

 

[PhantomVideo]

Brevis has back focus they call it 'micro collimation'

 

[johnsalazar]

thank you so much phantom!

 

[mvansomeren]

The SGBlade has a Collimation (back focus) adjustment as well.

The price you have listed must be with the flip module. You can get it without the flip module for less.

Here is an actually shutter speed test that PaPa did with the Beta Blade. I'm sure it's close to the Production version: http://www.vimeo.com/2335231

Also as far as light loss, it may be even less with the new optics.

Hoarp reported that with a lens attached (f1.4) the light loss was less than the lens should lose by itself. Not sure what the actual loss would be then, but it's apparently very little:

Ok, even more good news. Just handed the EX1/Blade over to an experienced DOP, who stuck some lights up, and some charts on the wall and measured the total lightloss of the blade, with RR2.

The result is surprising. The blade with flip and RR2 AND a f1.4 zeiss lense looses:

1.3STOPS


?!

With the lens thats supposed to loose 1.4 on its own!?

We have tested this with other lenses in the set, and we have tried the ex1 in the same position, same settings, and this is definitely accurate.


Cool eh :-D

 

[johnsalazar]

thanks mvansomeren! i was going for M2e there a few months ago mainly because of the spinning GG allowing '1/500' - and seen some good work come through one but havent heard the greatest things bout working with one. i now none of them are perfect - but spinning GG with multiple GG is appealing. especially with that kind of light loss. i think it may be as close to an ultimate as i can get.

dont think i like the rails much they dont look like they would support a cam really securely. like the letus v2, might get those instead...

also, i am looking to get one with a flip. my current camera and those i have access to dont all have in camera flip.

 

[cheezweezl]

the redrock m2e also has a collimating lens mount for back focus. the light loss with the m2e is very minimal. what have you heard bad about using the redrock?

i have seen nothing but good from the sgblade as well. it was on my radar but i had to get an adapter quickly. couldn't wait on the blade. once i got to use the m2e and see it for myself i bought it right then.

i think either one of those would be great and i think they are the best 2 adapters out right now. both better than the letus ultimate. i know some people will lash out at me for saying this but the fact is the ultimate doesn't stand up in terms of edge to edge focus, usable FOV, and light loss. sorry letus....

 

[Huy Vu]

i think either one of those would be great and i think they are the best 2 adapters out right now. both better than the letus ultimate. i know some people will lash out at me for saying this but the fact is the ultimate doesn't stand up in terms of edge to edge focus, usable FOV, and light loss. sorry letus....

Have you used the Ultimate before? I had a chance to used it a few months ago and the result was nothing short of excellent. Leagues above any other adapter I've used, including the Extreme and the older M2; very sharp, nice bokeh, very little light loss and great edge to edge with the EX1. The fact that I can shoot at f8 is also very nice; except for the Blade I don't think any other adapter out there allows this.

BTW, the Letus Extreme/Elite tops out at about 1/120 shutter.

 

[cheezweezl]

Have you used the Ultimate before? I had a chance to used it a few months ago and the result was nothing short of excellent. Leagues above any other adapter I've used, including the Extreme and the older M2; very sharp, nice bokeh, very little light loss and great edge to edge with the EX1. The fact that I can shoot at f8 is also very nice; except for the Blade I don't think any other adapter out there allows this.

BTW, the Letus Extreme/Elite tops out at about 1/120 shutter.

the ultimate does blow the LEX and the old M2 away but the M2e is a whole different animal. not saying the ultimate isn't great, just not the best. i did do some informal tests in my purchase decision process. edge to edge focus is great on the ultimate. m2e is better. comparison made on ex1. couldn't say how other cams compare. light loss is better on the m2e than the ult. not a huge difference but enough to see. FOV is a different story. you get so much more usable area on the m2e. i don't know why this is. maybe smaller gg on the ultimate. maybe letus was going for a 35mm motion picture frame size which is smaller than what slr lenses are capable of. the m2e gives you full frame 35mm FOV and beyond. so take all that plus the fact that you get the m2e with the flip and full solid rod support for $2k and suddenly the ultimate doesn't make much sense.

i am surprised that the m2e isn't getting the buzz.. maybe redrock took too long to update and were written off. maybe they aren't marketing enough. i don't know. i will admit that the old m2 kinda sucked by today's standards. i had one. it made nice pictures if you had the right amount of light. daylight for instance was stunning. but in artificial light, the sheer amount of light needed to make the adapter happy was a turn off. i think it lost like 2.5 stops. plus the edge to edge sucked and the way the gg mounted to the motor made it fragile and needed constant tweaking to keep it working right. this is why i sold mine.

now, almost a year later i was ready to buy another adapter setup. i had my mind set on letus because it seems to be what everyone is using. i liked the ultimate but the pricetag is so flippin high. i wasn't thrilled with the edge to edge of the extreme on the ex1. then i saw footage from the sgblade and drooled but couldn't put my hands on one. so i happened to stop by the redrock booth at nab and was blown away by the image and how much they had improved that system overall. so i bought one on the spot. took it home with me. i knew they had updated the m2 but since there was no buzz about it, very little footage online from it, and based on my previous m2 experience, it wasn't really on my radar. i'm so glad i didn't pass it up.

 

[Wayne Kinney]

The SGblade with FLIPmodule and Lens mounts comes to US$1,255, or with rods support US$1,476.

The max shutter speed with ROTOrazor one depends on many factors, mainly the 35mm lens aperture setting. With a 50mm F1.4 lens wide open, you can easily acheive 1/1000th shutter. The max shutter starts to become more limited the further the aperture is closed.

 

[Trey T]

For the Cinemek, I would correct the "unlimited" to not applicable(NA). it would throw some ppl off if they dont know the diff bt moving or non-moving GG.

As far as redrock is concerned, I bet the encore is very superior. Come on now, you can only go forward. you cant fail twice.

 

[GTP]

This is great... thanks for putting this together. I figure the next adapter I buy will probably be the last adapter I buy, so I want to make the most educated purchase possible. Trying to find out about a back focus adjustment on the Cinemek. Does it exist? Is it needed for the Cinemek? Also, to what extend can you stop down lenses on the these, specifically on the Cinemek before grain is seen. Typical sweet spot on most of my Nikons is 4 - 5.6 - 8 range. A deep depth of field is better achieved with the stock lens, but one of the attractions of the adapter is the organic quality of the shots. So, how far can a lens be stopped down before a grain pattern is seen is a big question of mine. Usually I shoot at 1/48 shutter.

Any info is much appreciated...

 

[johnsalazar]

the redrock m2e also has a collimating lens mount for back focus. the light loss with the m2e is very minimal. what have you heard bad about using the redrock?

i have seen nothing but good from the sgblade as well. it was on my radar but i had to get an adapter quickly. couldn't wait on the blade. once i got to use the m2e and see it for myself i bought it right then.

i think either one of those would be great and i think they are the best 2 adapters out right now. both better than the letus ultimate. i know some people will lash out at me for saying this but the fact is the ultimate doesn't stand up in terms of edge to edge focus, usable FOV, and light loss. sorry letus....

bad things i heard about RR were all the older m2, i agree someone one here wrote "you cant fail twice" - but you can continue to make something i wont like, take ford for example... haha, which comes back to all of these adapters - its a ford/chevy thing (or whatever... just a generic example) some people like what they like base don familiarity, so the designer keeps it - and that very reason is why some dont like it.

i like the rugged appearance of the m2e, it appears far more stable than the blades & its rails camera mount (which looks sad, i havent used it so it could be built like a beast) i would love to try one.

BTW, the Letus Extreme/Elite tops out at about 1/120 shutter.

thanks for this, which adapter do you have - if ya dont mind me askin? im thinking one thing i really over looked on the little chart thingy was edge-to-edge sharpness, which i guess could be a simple 1-4 rating...

the ultimate does blow the LEX and the old M2 away but the M2e is a whole different animal. not saying the ultimate isn't great, just not the best. i did do some informal tests in my purchase decision process. edge to edge focus is great on the ultimate. m2e is better. comparison made on ex1. couldn't say how other cams compare. light loss is better on the m2e than the ult. not a huge difference but enough to see. FOV is a different story. you get so much more usable area on the m2e. i don't know why this is. maybe smaller gg on the ultimate. maybe letus was going for a 35mm motion picture frame size which is smaller than what slr lenses are capable of. the m2e gives you full frame 35mm FOV and beyond. so take all that plus the fact that you get the m2e with the flip and full solid rod support for $2k and suddenly the ultimate doesn't make much sense.

i am surprised that the m2e isn't getting the buzz.. maybe redrock took too long to update and were written off. maybe they aren't marketing enough. i don't know. i will admit that the old m2 kinda sucked by today's standards. i had one. it made nice pictures if you had the right amount of light. daylight for instance was stunning. but in artificial light, the sheer amount of light needed to make the adapter happy was a turn off. i think it lost like 2.5 stops. plus the edge to edge sucked and the way the gg mounted to the motor made it fragile and needed constant tweaking to keep it working right. this is why i sold mine.

now, almost a year later i was ready to buy another adapter setup. i had my mind set on letus because it seems to be what everyone is using. i liked the ultimate but the pricetag is so flippin high. i wasn't thrilled with the edge to edge of the extreme on the ex1. then i saw footage from the sgblade and drooled but couldn't put my hands on one. so i happened to stop by the redrock booth at nab and was blown away by the image and how much they had improved that system overall. so i bought one on the spot. took it home with me. i knew they had updated the m2 but since there was no buzz about it, very little footage online from it, and based on my previous m2 experience, it wasn't really on my radar. i'm so glad i didn't pass it up.

so you have a blade? how are you liking it? anything that really really stands out for you? and if so what are some of your applications?

sorry for the twenty questions but have you had the opportunity to use the m2e? i was surprised they didnt push it more, i assume its not their cash crop... they have so many other things that they sell on their site - some absurdly priced. i was also really put off by the absence of a lot of photos of products on their site.

With a 50mm F1.4 lens wide open, you can easily acheive 1/1000th shutter.

thanks. this is what i was hoping for, obviously the the lenses affect this. but a max shutter is the on real way i know of to rate a 'GG rotating speed' capability, none of the manufacturers use any kind of rpm/rps vocabulary. which is a more absolute answer than a subjective max shutter claim, which will always be different than a max rpm/rps.

For the Cinemek, I would correct the "unlimited" to not applicable(NA). it would throw some ppl off if they dont know the diff bt moving or non-moving GG.

yeah good point, i had corrected it from NA to unlimited after i read something worded similarly, i dunno if it was on the manufacturers site or what... im gonna post an updated chart under the current one as soon as i get more & more accurate info.

Also, to what extend can you stop down lenses on the these, specifically on the Cinemek before grain is seen.

what i understand is that the grain is almost always visible - and seems to be part of the point of the whole unit, aside from being low maintenance & more simple to use, the grain is a desired and artistic addition to the footage. obviously different lenses, f-stops, light conditions, etc. - will increase or decrease the presence of the grain.

 

[cheezweezl]

bad things i heard about RR were all the older m2, i agree someone one here wrote "you cant fail twice"
i like the rugged appearance of the m2e, it appears far more stable than the blades & its rails camera mount (which looks sad, i havent used it so it could be built like a beast) i would love to try one.

thanks for this, which adapter do you have - if ya dont mind me askin? im thinking one thing i really over looked on the little chart thingy was edge-to-edge sharpness, which i guess could be a simple 1-4 rating...

so you have a blade? how are you liking it? anything that really really stands out for you? and if so what are some of your applications?

sorry for the twenty questions but have you had the opportunity to use the m2e? i was surprised they didnt push it more, i assume its not their cash crop... they have so many other things that they sell on their site - some absurdly priced. i was also really put off by the absence of a lot of photos of products on their site.

well redrock didn't exactly "fail" the first time. when the original m2 came out it was the best thing going and tons of people were using it. at that time, the letus was brand new and the build quality was iffy. i think the brevis was just coming out. and the original sg pro was pretty much a copy of redrock's design. redrock was the only company that wasn't operating out of a garage and had real accessories, rod support, etc.

then all of the other companies started innovating and redrock did nothing. so the LEX took over as the king of adapters while redrock took their sweet time to come up with something new. while this move kind of screwed them out of the adapter race, it was the right thing to do. they waited until they could get it right and be able to offer a superior product. that commands respect.

rr still has the most solid build quality of any of the adapters shy of the mini35. the adapter mounts directly to the rods. the rods and baseplate are as solid as anything i've seen. the follow focus is brilliant and has less play than even the zacuto one.

but most importantly, the image quality and flexibility of shutter speed and stopping down are amazing.


i have the m2e. i have not used the sgblade. i was very impressed by the footage i saw from it but couldn't get my hands on one. i can't say anything about it's low light capability or build quality but edge to edge and overall sharpness seemed great from what i saw.

 

[DEPTH OF PHIL]

CINEMEK COMPARISON From Experience

CINEMEK COMPARISON From Experience

Hello, i had posted earlier about my initial set up of the Cinemek EX1-EX3 combo . You can find it under Cinemek. You see there are so many relevant issues with all these fine adapters, but in the end it is a personal choice of what is most important to you as far as your "look " goes. For me i don't want an adapter that just takes the background, foreground out of focus and it still looks like video, the EX1/EX3 already does that.

I need one that mostly resembles film...period. To me that is the point. Without a doubt and you can search the web, Cinemek looks the most like film, it adds beauty to what would look just average with the raw lens. Philip Bloom's latest G35 short is brilliant,
I shot very basic tests on it last week and was blown away.

Cinemek G35
Shutter is unlimited, i tried it!
E2E is almost perfect, (the Letus is slightly better but at the cost of average Bokeh!)
CA, Only on a few lenses ever so slight , you will have to strain to see it.
Very sharp, i struggled to see the grain , but at least it does not band like spinning GG. I will do more tests and post them.

Light loss, is rated at 1.5 but keep in mind you don't have to zoom in as much as the other adapters, which creates softness and light loss. So that is an interesting point of comparison. If you light the shot like film, ( That's a no brainer) it will take your breath away!

Back Focus, yes the Nikon Mount flanges forward and back very easily with an allen screw adjustment. It works great. It is about 3-4.5 lbs lighter as well , no flip.
In post it flips very easily and i just turn my monitor upside down in the field. Now Jonathan tells us he is working on a flip solution. so who knows?

SG Blade
It's very good, and was my favorite but it had a lot of CA, but i understand there is ad Flip update that "dramatically improves this" But the image looks best with RR2 now we have almost a full stop of light loss, no big deal if you light your shots but it is if you shoot dark interiors . We also have to zoom in another 20% or so on the GG. More softness and light loss. Still think it looks good though but not the best yet. But Wayne is dedicated to perfection. I'm sure eventually , he will prevail!

Encore
At the NAB mounted on an EX1 it had very soft E2E, i'm also not a fan of the build and design either. Too front heavy and bulky But they are a great company but way too many non answered tech problems on the forum, honestly that scared me! But keep in mind i am talking about the need to perform on an EX1.

Any way hope this helps, i know how hard it was for me to choose!

 

[mvansomeren]

...Without a doubt and you can search the web, Cinemek looks the most like film,. ..

That is a very subjective statement...one that I don't happen to agree with . It does have nice bokeh, but so do other adapters. The film look is much more than bokeh. Lighting, framing and camera movement has much more to do with the film look than bokeh, IMO.

Cinemek G35
CA, Only on a few lenses ever so slight , you will have to strain to see it.
Very sharp, i struggled to see the grain , but at least it does not band like spinning GG. I will do more tests and post them.

Actually, I noticed CA very easily on P.B.'s latest short. (not that it really matters) IMO, people are too worried about CA. Unless it's major, most people won't even notice it. Besides, that video is so heavily graded, it's hard to tell what is from the Cinemek and what is from Magic Bullet. I don't think it can really be used to judge what the adapter can do, IMO.

More important than shutter speed is f stop. That's how you control the DOF. Try shooting at a bright sky or a bright flat surface. I think you'll find that your f stops will be limited on a static GG adapter, even Cinemek. Spinning GG adapters win in this area.

Light loss, is rated at 1.5 but keep in mind you don't have to zoom in as much as the other adapters, which creates softness and light loss. So that is an interesting point of comparison. If you light the shot like film, ( That's a no brainer) it will take your breath away!

What do you zoom to on the Cinemek? I think that adapters like the blade, brevis and M2e, for example, that have the option of not using a flip module is a similar setup, essentially, as the Cinemek. If you're comparing it to adapters with a flip module, you're comparing apples to oranges.

SG Blade
It's very good, and was my favorite but it had a lot of CA, but i understand there is ad Flip update that "dramatically improves this" But the image looks best with RR2 now we have almost a full stop of light loss, no big deal if you light your shots but it is if you shoot dark interiors . We also have to zoom in another 20% or so on the GG. More softness and light loss. Still think it looks good though but not the best yet. But Wayne is dedicated to perfection. I'm sure eventually , he will prevail!

To be fair, it was really the EX1 / blade combo the exibited "a lot" of CA from the videos I've seen. I have yet to see any CA on either RR1 or RR2 shots I've taken with the A1 /Blade (with flip). I'm sure there will be situations that may cause some, but I will get the updated optics just in case.

Also, after Hoarp's tests with the EX1/blade with new optics and RR2, the light loss was less then the 35mm lens' rating. According to Hoarp, the lens was a f1.4 Zeiss lens and total light loss was 1.3 stops. Less than the Cinemek (including 35mm lens) even if you have to zoom in a lot. It seems that his tests also show that the new optics have solved the CA issue.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=169259&page=4

Just out of curiosity, did you actually use a Blade or are you basing your statements on things you've read?

 

[DEPTH OF PHIL]

That is a very subjective statement...one that I don't happen to agree with . It does have nice bokeh, but so do other adapters. The film look is much more than bokeh. Lighting, framing and camera movement has much more to do with the film look than bokeh, IMO.

yes, it does need all those elements as well as Bokeh

Actually, I noticed CA very easily on P.B.'s latest short. (not that it really matters) IMO, people are too worried about CA. Unless it's major, most people won't even notice it. Besides, that video is so heavily graded, it's hard to tell what is from the Cinemek and what is from Magic Bullet. I don't think it can really be used to judge what the adapter can do, IMO..

I hear you, but Philip Bloom is a artist not a technician and in the end that is what the audience will enjoy. Perhaps we should get more test charts out there, but i think it is up to the manufacturer to do that not the artist!

More important than shutter speed is f stop. That's how you control the DOF. Try shooting at a bright sky or a bright flat surface. I think you'll find that your f stops will be limited on a static GG adapter, even Cinemek. Spinning GG adapters win in this area.

I don't usually shoot bright skies or a bright flat surface, i am going after a more planned out shoot , a movie, so for myself it works. I will compensate poor light issues /f stop with the appropriate reflectors and Kinos, HMIs. If the shoot to emulate film, i treat as such, I love low light adapters but a real film needs lighting. That can be done cost effectively by people with as much passion as we have.

Oh, I always struggled with banding on spinning GG in those conditions.

What do you zoom to on the Cinemek? I think that adapters like the blade, brevis and M2e, for example, that have the option of not using a flip module is a similar setup, essentially, as the Cinemek. If you're comparing it to adapters with a flip module, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Zoom is variable, I think Philip stated, 55-58 , but depending on the, lens and the composition of the frame any where between 48 - 58, is what i have used.

If you are going to compare these adapters ultimately for their Bokeh, and final look in the project then flip or no flip is irrelevant. But i do wish i had a flip but hopefully that will come soon.

Also, after Hoarp's tests with the EX1/blade with new optics and RR2, the light loss was less then the 35mm lens' rating. According to Hoarp, the lens was a f1.4 Zeiss lens and total light loss was 1.3 stops. Less than the Cinemek (including 35mm lens) even if you have to zoom in a lot. It seems that his tests also show that the new optics have solved the CA issue.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=169259&page=4

Looks pretty great but a little soft for my tastes, there is a more surreal edge to the Cinemek as well even with regular simple shots.

QUOTE=mvansomeren;1626517]Just out of curiosity, did you actually use a Blade or are you basing your statements on things you've read?[/QUOTE]


Well we all base things on what we read in forums, thats why we are here right now.
Actually when i went back to the UK , i have a friend who had rented one and i played around with it. i rather quite fancied it really. But it had soft edges and CA on the EX1 and this is what i'm basing my comparison on , What works with the EX1, there is alot of great stuff around shot on a G35 with other cameras HVX 200 XHA1 etc , but i have an EX1 and EX3 . I also had seen your stuff shot in Balboa Park, i believe it was .
Looked great , but still had the overtones of video. I have shot film for than 15 years but on SD/HD video for only 7. But that might be a good perspective to judge a filmic comparison. Great convo , keep me posted on SG BLADE optics links , i will buy one when they fix all that. Then i will have two great adapters!

Cheers

 

[mvansomeren]

I hear you, but Philip Bloom is a artist not a technician and in the end that is what the audience will enjoy. Perhaps we should get more test charts out there, but i think it is up to the manufacturer to do that not the artist!

Totally agree. My point is just that heavily graded footage shouldn't be used to judge how well an adapter performs, regardless of who shoots it.

Oh, I always struggled with banding on spinning GG in those conditions.

Well, you saw in my balboa park video that I didn't experience any banding shooting the sky. I agree with you about planned shooting and avoiding skies, but there will likely be a shot that you need that includes a sky. My point was that a static GG is more limiting than a spinning GG.

Zoom is variable, I think Philip stated, 55-58 , but depending on the, lens and the composition of the frame any where between 48 - 58, is what i have used.

If you are going to compare these adapters ultimately for their Bokeh, and final look in the project then flip or no flip is irrelevant. But i do wish i had a flip but hopefully that will come soon.

I point this out because you emphasized additonal light loss caused by needed by zooming in more. There are different zoom requirements when you use a flip module as opposed to non-flip. One can require more zooming than the other. By the way, I used to shoot non-flipped on my DIY mid-format adapter. It is so much nicer shooting and with a flip module and not having to flip in post.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually use a Blade or are you basing your statements on things you've read?

Well we all base things on what we read in forums, thats why we are here right now.

We do learn this way. But sometimes things are repeated as fact without first-hand knowledge. I've seen many times where flawed information is passed on as gospel. For example, if you shoot on the A1 with an adapter and don't use an ext monitor, your footage is likely to be soft because its almost impossible to pull good focus using the camera's LCD. I experienced this myself. I finally got an external HD monitor because it was so frustrating. Someone seeing that footage may come to the conclusion that the adapter's footage is soft when in fact it was due to operator error.

I also had seen your stuff shot in Balboa Park, i believe it was .
Looked great , but still had the overtones of video.

Yeah, I didn't even attempt to make it look like film. It was an fstop test, basically.

I have shot film for than 15 years but on SD/HD video for only 7. But that might be a good perspective to judge a filmic comparison.

Yup. I have been involved in the industry in some fashion since 1971, either in front of the camera or behind it (mostly behind it :happy: ) Even those that have done this forever have their vision of what looks like film and they don't necessarily agree. It is still all subjective.

It really comes down to what we like and it may not be what others like. From what i've seen, the Cinemek is a solid "piece of kit" to quote the UK vernacular. Having options is never a bad thing.

Looking forward to seeing some of your work with the Cinemek.