pookie_old
Veteran
thisiswells said:
I think he means the stock lens just won't do [the film look] but he can't say it now.
disassembling the DVX lens
- Thread starter Gundorf Dunderklumpen
- Start date
I think he means the stock lens just won't do [the film look] but he can't say it now.
Gundorf Dunderklumpen
Well-known member
WOW....this "film" look thing has gone WAY too far. You know, I also shoot DIGITAL still photography and I dont use just ONE lens. Some are wide or fisheyed some are longer and give a shallow depth of field. So. Once again my point was never to try to mimic film, instead it is to get varied focal lengths or wider shots in a smaller space, to get macro shots perhaps, or to zoom in on something that further away than what the stock lens can handle. I AGREE THAT VIDEO IS VIDEO AND WONT LOOK LIKE FILM no matter what lens is put on the camera. It's NOT about getting this "filmic look that everyone is insisting that I am talking about.
If you look at my first post, or ANY of them for that matter, none of them mention trying to get a film look.
I posted it to get some friendly help, not a hard time.
There are many people that are members of this forum that are VERY intelligent and extremely helpful. I am very appreciative of those people.
What I don't appreciate is when people laugh at questions. If you don't like the question don't answer it.
If you look at my first post, or ANY of them for that matter, none of them mention trying to get a film look.
I posted it to get some friendly help, not a hard time.
There are many people that are members of this forum that are VERY intelligent and extremely helpful. I am very appreciative of those people.
What I don't appreciate is when people laugh at questions. If you don't like the question don't answer it.
thisiswells
Retired
I'm not saying you're wrong, but the one time I tried the 3x wide angle lens on an XL1S a year ago I left completely disappointed. It was soft. Really soft. ...Even in the viewfinder at f/4!
Lens adapters and converters leverage the features of the built-in lens (iris, motors, basic functionality) and offer users an affordable way to access different focal lengths and effects.
Why are you so opposed to using them? :undecided
Lens adapters and converters leverage the features of the built-in lens (iris, motors, basic functionality) and offer users an affordable way to access different focal lengths and effects.
Why are you so opposed to using them? :undecided
pookie_old
Veteran
No one is laughing at your questions.
99.9% of all questions about "adding a lens" is a Mini35, for the "film look".
Stop stamping your feet, and loosen up a bit.
btw, maybe you should have bought an XL2 if interchangable lenses are important.
99.9% of all questions about "adding a lens" is a Mini35, for the "film look".
Stop stamping your feet, and loosen up a bit.
btw, maybe you should have bought an XL2 if interchangable lenses are important.
Gundorf Dunderklumpen
Well-known member
I'm not opposed to the idea of converters. I was mostly curious about the technology and what else is out there. I agree about the 3X on the xl1s. I never liked that lens.
Gundorf Dunderklumpen
Well-known member
Sounds like laughing to me.pookie said:
My first post was just a simple inquiry, nothing more. No heavy importance. and Ive never been happy with the image from an XL1
Mesuge
Member
pookie said:
In my humble opinion this is just not true. It's only about getting the digital 35mm technology which artficially mimics the properties of fim cheaper. Is it possible to achieve that 100% by just heavily moding DVX100? Given the inappropriate chip in DVX100 most certainly not but we can get at least beyond its hard "video feel".. The 35mm adapter, lens hack, and Andromeda nocompress raw color data capture are one of the options..
The ultimate proof:
ARRIFLEX D-20 CMOS chip 1" and film vs. video shoot out:
http://www.arri.com/prod/cam/d_20/d_20_images.htm
http://www.arri.com/news/newsletter/articles/267485/d-20_masterclass.htm
Yes, the real film would be still a hair better but the margin would be like 0.5% hah
Moreover, clones of ARRIFLEX D-20 CMOS 1" cameras are poping up and can be done for $20k (sans storage)! For instance check out these Russian guys:
http://www.ctt.ru
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=34339&page=23&highlight=russian
Alternatively, you can get very close (1080HD uncompressed) with 2/3" CMOS chip cameras for $10k:
http://www.siliconimaging.com/
pookie_old
Veteran
Sorry, but you're talking about a very good video look, absolutly correct.
But no video camera can supply the subtle looks, or even the grain that is achieved with film.
Close? Maybe.
" real film would be still a hair better but the margin would be like 0.5%",
Sorry, no.
But no video camera can supply the subtle looks, or even the grain that is achieved with film.
Close? Maybe.
" real film would be still a hair better but the margin would be like 0.5%",
Sorry, no.
Mr. Blonde
RED Advocate
Just shutup and let the guy do it, **** i'd love to be able to hook up a dvx like that. Tell me if you have any luck with it high8. :thumbup:
bluestar
Active member
seriously people, If it's dumb, makes you laugh at the person, or annoys you in someway....stay OUT of the topic. Pookie...i'm sorry, but your first post is pointless and offered nothing but an answer helpful to the man.
Why can't anyone just keep their personal feelings to themselves and help people out instead of shooting at their questions?
Why can't anyone just keep their personal feelings to themselves and help people out instead of shooting at their questions?
Gundorf Dunderklumpen
Well-known member
Thanks for the encouragment guys. I am still looking in to it. My plan is to try it with my older DVX100. not the A version. I think it might be cool to try. Since I already have a bunch of great canon lenses and I wont lose as much light as I would with an adapter. We'll see.
Rick Meyer
Veteran
HDCinema25 said:
I think it was John Bobbit.