G35 vs Blade

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Jonathan, it is well known that diffusers like a ground glass or in general diffusers are diffusing the image... when shooting with an adapter that is using a diffused surface to create the intermediate image you get a slightly diffused image than the original.. like a 1/4 promist filter. That in general is not bad and sometime is needed by the DoP's. On the other hand... a comment in Cinematography forum...

"if you plan a 35mm out you probably should do a test BEFORE you commit to the 35mm adaptor. all my research says that it softens the image which might look cool on a $20,000 HD monitor but is not something you want to look at on a giant theatre screen."

Softens is diffuse...

A good example on what is diffuse, is in this thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=154383

Notice the difference in diffuse in the to images...

 

[twocik23]

"We use nikon D screens. "


Ha yea ok.... It's cool I not trying to take your secret recipe, just curious. I've experimented with a ton of different things and have only found that the glass I was getting from Japan was the best I could find, which definitely needs movement. I got out of the adapter business awhile ago, just not worth the headache and phone calls. Which I sure you know what I mean....

 

[JHouser]

"We use nikon D screens. "


Ha yea ok.... It's cool I not trying to take your secret recipe, just curious. I've experimented with a ton of different things and have only found that the glass I was getting from Japan was the best I could find, which definitely needs movement. I got out of the adapter business awhile ago, just not worth the headache and phone calls. Which I sure you know what I mean....

hehe, yea no worries. Thought you would get a kick out of that. We have been working on this project for 4 years now and nothing we have tested (Fiber optic screens) included with exception to our current screens (which we custom manufacture ourselves) gives us the all around look of 35mm. Thanks for the props.

 

[JHouser]

Jonathan, it is well known that diffusers like a ground glass or in general diffusers are diffusing the image... when shooting with an adapter that is using a diffused surface to create the intermediate image you get a slightly diffused image than the original.. like a 1/4 promist filter. That in general is not bad and sometime is needed by the DoP's. On the other hand... a comment in Cinematography forum...

"if you plan a 35mm out you probably should do a test BEFORE you commit to the 35mm adaptor. all my research says that it softens the image which might look cool on a $20,000 HD monitor but is not something you want to look at on a giant theatre screen."

Softens is diffuse...

A good example on what is diffuse, is in this thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=154383

Notice the difference in diffuse in the to images...

Have you ever met our friend Dan Diaconu? Because it sounds like to two would get along nicely. He was always a sharpness guy.

So you are trying to define the difference between an Fiber Optic Screen and Brand X diffuser? Ah ok I get it.

Let me give you a bit of background.

I have tested it all.

Custom Ground Glass
Opal Diffusers
Bill Maxwell's screens
Boss Screens
Beattie Intenscreen screen
POC diffusers
Fiber Optic screens
Nikon D screens ( that one was for fun)

There were a few more but you get the point. There is more than just sharpness at stake here. I think sharpness is the thing people talk about most because

1. Most adapters are soft and pretty crappy frankly.

2. It's easy to quantify sharpness. Shoot a rez chart and there you go.

This is my sticking point with Rez charts and sharpness arguments.
As a DoP, the subtleties of an image are very very important to me. I have not found a solution which erects and image, that looks as close to 35mm as the solution I currently have. I am not saying that to sell adapters. I am saying that because I honestly believe that. My mission is to get as close to the look of 35mm film as possible. Period. that's it.


I agree with you, ground glass diffusers are very inefficient. We are not using ground glass. I assure your the G35 does not look like you have a ProMist filter on. I would kill myself if that was the case. I hate ProMist filters.

Fiber optic screens are sharp. But they still look like video. I would never mistake any of those clips you posted for film. They all Clip (blow out) like video and have tons of chromatic abrasions. So if sharpness and a blurry background is all you are after than it looks like you have achieved it. I want more from my product.

If you want to blow your video up to 35mm shoot on RED.

 

[astigmatic]

perhaps a wax made screen.

 

[twocik23]

Yes you've definitely achieved sharpness with the adapter and I think the only thing holding your back is the stopping down factor, other than that your image is almost perfect.

From my testing I've noticed when moving any kind of material, that can cause softness. Is this the reason you chose not to spin or vibrate the adapter ?

 

[Tim Naylor]

re: G35 questions for Houser. Got some questions I couldn't find answers to on the site.

Is the 1.4 light loss with or without glass on the front? How does it mount to camera? I went to the site and I think it just screws in the front. Will I need different step down/up rings for different cameras? Is there a thread for a support bracket? Do you offer a support bracket? Will the ground glass allow zooming out beyond cine 35 imager to something closer to Vista Vision / Full Frame still? THis is important as the still wide angle choices suck if you have to be shooting a super 35 size image.

I find this adaptor intriguing as hell. I love the footage as well as Houser's philosophy towards build quality (an attitude sorely lacking with other makers - you know who you are). I basically dumped all my adaptors because mechanical / electronic parts have failed on me with every adaptor I've owned. That's fine if you're a one man band or with a tiny crew but if you've got 20-30 people waiting on you, the first hour it's down it's more than paid for itself.

I can live with a stop limit of 4-5.6. What's the best ingest method for flipping for FCP? I've done this before in FCP and with multiclip work it's royal pain in the processor. If there's a good workflow for this, the G 35 looks all the more attractive.

 

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

Have you ever met our friend Dan Diaconu? Because it sounds like to two would get along nicely. He was always a sharpness guy.

No I don't know the guy... I'm not sharpness crazy... I'm MTF aware DIT and 2K FILM DI supervisor... apart from my engineering profession...

So you are trying to define the difference between an Fiber Optic Screen and Brand X diffuser? Ah ok I get it.

No...

Let me give you a bit of background.

I have tested it all.

Custom Ground Glass
Opal Diffusers
Bill Maxwell's screens
Boss Screens
Beattie Intin screens
POC diffusers
Fiber Optic screens
Nikon D screens ( that one was for fun)

There were a few more but you get the point.

Likewise...

There is more than just sharpness at stake here. I think sharpness is the thing people talk about most because

No its not the sharpens everything, but contrast and micro contrast is. Thats why we use the term MTF properties... An intermediate image element should resolve the front lens properties with the minimum losses in all aspects as possible.

1. Most adapters are soft and pretty crappy frankly.

I wouldn't go that far away to say crappy... but artistically soft, probably yes

2. It's easy to quantify sharpness. Shoot a rez chart and there you go.

If you are just counting the lines yes, there you are... but if you search for the contrast behavior in different line count that is called MTF... or contrast and micro contrast...

This is my sticking point with Rez charts and sharpness arguments.
As a DoP, the subtleties of an image are very very important to me. I have not found a solution which erects and image, that looks as close to 35mm as the solution I currently have. I am not saying that to sell adapters. I am saying that because I honestly believe that. My mission is to get as close to the look of 35mm film as possible. Period. that's it.

Hmm... Ahh... 35 look... The 35 look among people that in general is doing video is something subjective... Our company's major work is DI... I have finish at least four 35 film to 35 film DI's the last three years and on the same machines and the same viewing environment 23 DigitalBeta/DV/HVX-HD/Varicam/F900R/RED video to film transfers on our LaserGraphics and ARRIlaser film recorder... So I can say that I can have an opinion in that subject... a personal one...

So film is really sharp... but better I would say it has higher MTF... it is much better in micro contrast and it is vivid... it has a filmic curve that compresses the blacks and the highlights in a very natural way that tracks the human perception very closely... film is not grain and its not soft looking at all...

The 95% of film look in digital imaging is hidden in the "natural way that tracks the human perception" so a log processing from cameras that have that ability (like Varicam's FilmRec, Genesis PanaLog, F23 SLog, REDLog, Viper FilmStreem, SI 2K DPX out...) with LUT's for film out (that are log) are giving that feeling of richness that film has...

A recent job that I have finished is the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1322401/ this was shot with our Varicam with a 2/3 lens, a canon Cinestyle zoom lens, and with just a light meter... the monitor was in black & white... with no waveform... just a light meter... I have told to the DoP (a very good one with huge experience in 35 and very little, to non, to video...) to use the camera as a S16 in terms of DoF, that has the latitude behavior of a 5201 Kodak stock and the sensitivity the camera is, 500ASA... I told him to pretend that it has a film camera... When he return and we see the footage there wasn't a single shot burned even thought that was shoot in 12' o clock midday in June in Greece at 1500m altitude with a landscape full of totally white rocks...

We grade the movie and handle it like we do in 35 scan... in Log... the result, on the Thessaloníki International Festival, was to call me DoPs from the theater that saw the movie to tell me that they realized it was HD only when they read the credits and see that it was Varicam... One DoP (with more than 12 features in his carrier...) that owns a RED, told me that my 35 adapter worked perfect on that movie... I told him that I didn't use an adapter... he was shocked...

So from an adapter I just want the DoF and NOTHING ELSE...

I agree with you, ground glass diffusers are very inefficient. We are not using ground glass. I assure your the G35 does not look like you have a ProMist filter on. I would kill myself if that was the case. I hate ProMist filters.

I just want to be able to have the control... I don't hate ProMist neither our lead actresses... it is just a tool that I want to control it...

Fiber optic screens are sharp. But they still look like video. I would never mistake any of those clips you posted for film. They all Clip (blow out) like video and have tons of chromatic abrasions. So if sharpness and a blurry background is all you are after than it looks like you have achieved it. I want more from my product.

Go to this http://www.motionfx.gr/ggrelay_galery.htm and see the part from 12:06... and tell me if it looks like video...

If you want to blow your video up to 35mm shoot on RED.

I already answer to that... to wrap it up... its not the resolution... Varicam is 720p...

 

[JHouser]

re: G35 questions for Houser. Got some questions I couldn't find answers to on the site.

Cool, we are updating the website now to add way more information.

Is the 1.4 light loss with or without glass on the front?

As lenses vary we cannot account for that. so yes, just the adapter.

How does it mount to camera? I went to the site and I think it just screws in the front.

There are two options (these are from our new website content

1. The CSmount (camera specific mount)

2. The Universal mount (72mm threads which can be steped up or down to fit smaller cameras)

Will I need different step down/up rings for different cameras?

For the Umounts yes. Whatever the thread of the camera needed you need to step down/up to 72mm

Is there a thread for a support bracket?

Yes.

Do you offer a support bracket?

We are working on a super slick easy on and off mini bridgeplate.

Will the ground glass allow zooming out beyond cine 35 imager to something closer to Vista Vision / Full Frame still? THis is important as the still wide angle choices suck if you have to be shooting a super 35 size image.

Of course. the standard G35 ustilizes a screen which is 42mm in diameter. It depends on the coverage of the lens if you need to zoom in. I.E. PL Mount vs Still.

I find this adaptor intriguing as hell. I love the footage as well as Houser's philosophy towards build quality (an attitude sorely lacking with other makers - you know who you are). I basically dumped all my adaptors because mechanical / electronic parts have failed on me with every adaptor I've owned. That's fine if you're a one man band or with a tiny crew but if you've got 20-30 people waiting on you, the first hour it's down it's more than paid for itself.

Word. This is something I have always held as my philosophy. I am a DP. So when I have down time or if I am fiddling with a set of sticks while the crew/director/talent is waiting I am damaging my own name and reputation. I refuse to make a product which will cause that kind of stress for my customers.

I can live with a stop limit of 4-5.6. What's the best ingest method for flipping for FCP? I've done this before in FCP and with multiclip work it's royal pain in the processor. If there's a good workflow for this, the G 35 looks all the more attractive.

You know, that is a great question. It's been answered on here before. Im pretty sure there is a plugin for FCP which allows you to flip on capture. Can anyone chime in and verify this?.

 

[Lenilenapi]

JHouser,
Have you considered making a flip for your adapter?
I know my own clients were thrilled when the Letus came out first with a flip. I didn't realize until then how much of a pain in the butt they said flipping in post was. It seemed to cause lots of additional and maybe repeated render time.
I'm just relaying what I've been told.
Lenny Levy

 

[utopeya]

Im pretty sure there is a plugin for FCP which allows you to flip on capture. Can anyone chime in and verify this?.

Apparently, Raylight MXFX for Mac can flip Panasonic MXF files with no recompression. (I'm looking at the website now--720p can be flipped without recompression, but 1080-line formats are recompressed.)

I've never used it myself.

 

[JHouser]

Apparently, Raylight MXFX for Mac can flip Panasonic MXF files with no recompression. (I'm looking at the website now--720p can be flipped without recompression, but 1080-line formats are recompressed.)

I've never used it myself.

Interesting. It's kind of steep. I wonder if they offer a demo to evaluate.

 

[philip bloom]

I have a Letus Flip, do you think it will work with the G35?

 

[JHouser]

I have a Letus Flip, do you think it will work with the G35?

Philip,
No, well...maybe basically the G35 has the achromat housed inside the adapter. It is the back element which effectively seals the rear of the unit and the last optic which is put in before we purge the whole thing with Nitrogen. It is very doable, just not by a user because of debris and whatnot which will enter the unit once it's opened thus voiding the warrantee. We are working to get a flip unit out which should be able to be retrofitted to current G35's by us.

I also sent you a PM.

Cheers,

 

[Kholi]

Go to this http://www.motionfx.gr/ggrelay_galery.htm and see the part from 12:06... and tell me if it looks like video...



I already answer to that... to wrap it up... its not the resolution... Varicam is 720p...

That video has a lot of odd CA in it. And it's a bit "smeary". Odd. Edit: I just read that it was a Brevis used. For some reason Brevis footage always has that weird "glassy smear" going on. Like there's vaseline on something.

I like my sharpness, as well. I also think that the G35 has it's place and looks damned good as it sits. I'd love to see some more high res footage from it as well.

 

[philip bloom]

am hoping to get it on test very soon. Looks cracking

 

[dmc]

I just got off the phone with Jonathan - cool guy (not like "the Fonz" cool, but you know, cool, cool) ; )

I ordered a G35 for my HPX170 (they are now offering the 170 mounts) - super excited!

It looks like a really well built unit and to my eye, renders a beautiful, very organic looking image.


I appreciate all of the back and forth info from this site - it helped a lot in my decision.


thanks guys!




dmc

 

[shiny4]

this could be better of raylight for non flip solution: for only 75$
http://www.calibratedsoftware.com/MXFImport_Mac.asp

 

[Evangelos Achillopoulos]

That video has a lot of odd CA in it. And it's a bit "smeary". Odd. Edit: I just read that it was a Brevis used. For some reason Brevis footage always has that weird "glassy smear" going on. Like there's vaseline on something.

The look of Bokeh is totally different from lens to lens and from aperture to aperture... the 50mm at F2.8 has that "silicone" look, but the 28mm at F2.8 doesn't... thats not the screen, neither Brevis... since Kholi, if you read it closely, there is nothing in the path of light that is from Cinevate... Brevis was a host adapter... no achromat, no GG, no relay from Cinevate... and the CA is due to the very bad performance of Zeiss ZF 50mm F1.4... IT IS THE WORST lens of Zeiss ZF series for me... check the 28mm footage.. there is very little to non CA, and thats because of a different lens...

Read this post at Red forum:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24733

This is shoot with RED, so no adapter... the 50mm is a very bad test lens... it has severe CA problems...

The discussion with Jonathan was because of same rumors, that G35 is using FiberScreen as a GG... that is, I dont know if you notice in the video, I was turning vibration On and Off while I was shooting and the Fiber was visible (when static) just after F8...

I like my sharpness, as well. I also think that the G35 has it's place and looks damned good as it sits. I'd love to see some more high res footage from it as well.

I didn't want to compare with anyone... I just want to say my opinion... that is, G35 has nothing to do with FiberScreens... we agree that are, at least, different... FiberScreens can do static... but this is another story...

 

[mvansomeren]

hmmmm the example in the reduser article looks a lot more like sensor bloom caused by the bright light behind the subject rather than CA. If you look at his hat, there is purple fringing on both sides - typical of sensor bloom. The green pixels on the sensor are the first to overload when there is an extreme highlight. Each green pixel is surronded by two red and blue pixels. The charge of the green pixel overloads into the red and blue pixels causing the purple (magenta) fringe.

Typically, CA manifests as blue or red or sometimes purple on one side of an object and yellow or cyan on the other.

I'm not saying that that lens doesn't have CA problems, but I don't believe that is an example of it.