Go35 Pro - Footage

Actually I don't think the later shots in that footage are as soft or grainy as Yas may lead you to believe. The earlier ones definately.

In the last shots where there's an abundant light source i think they look pretty sharp (especially the last shot).
And honestly in a professional setting you're going to light properly.
Unless you like to run and gun your shooting all the time the grain and softness will not be as huge an issue.

I'd like to see some examples of bokeh though.

What impressed me most is the reason for the adapter, shallow depth of field. Very precise.

But folks have different sensiblities in terms of style and what may be unacceptable to Yas could work well or play to someone else's sensibility.
 
Nice footage ! Not sure about the grain (camera or QT compression ?), but i'd like to see a test in a low light environment.

Thanks,
Ulisses
 
Apologies for the soft footage, it's all I could do in the little time I had. I think that softness with the first few shots has more to do with not having my apertures (on both the adapter and dvx) set correctly. Sharpness does seem better with the shot on the patio. I think I'm also losing 30 lines or so since I'm in squeeze mode. I can recompress the footage for everyone later this evening and see if that's the cause, what settings do you all want me to use? I'd be willing to do a bokeh test too, if someone can give me an idea of how to best compose a shot for that test (I have access to a 50 f/1.4, 50 f/1.8 and a 35-105 f/3.5-4.5).

I think you're going to need to adequately light scenes with almost any 35mm adapter aren't you? We are going to shoot some stuff over the next week or two with a DP. Hopefully the results will be more professional.
 
Last edited:
You've got a cute kid -- I love that shot of him playing with the magnifier. The rest of the footage seems up to par with what I'd expect -- sure I'm biased, but I love the highlights, flareouts and bokeh. Thanks for posting this -- can't wait to see more upcoming work!
 
It actualy looks quite good. But it's hard to tell in such a small window. It looks like promissing stuff...though a moving mechanism will almost certainly be needed for HD users. I'll keep my eyes peeled for the Hd version...if you need a beta tester for that, let me know ;-)
 
Looks pretty good. The compression is rather severe, so it's hard to make out good detail. But for the most part it looks good. Seems to be a bit too much diffusion on the highlights, but that's probably more of an exposure problem than a problem with the GG. I'd love to see a bokeh test too. :D It almost seems like there is a slight vignette sometimes, but I can't always tell. Any thoughts on that? Anyone else seeing anything like that?
 
Can you really call the fx-1 hd anymore? Compared to the newer camera's that are true HD, I'd say fx-1 really doesn't need a moving 35mm adapter.

-Rh
 
Well, MacGregor used the static G35 beta with FX1 and seemed to produce acceptable results with it.

But as already stated here, the "almost grainless" is a matter or perspective. One persons acceptable grain might be absolutelly unacceptable to other one.
 
Car3o said:
Can you really call the fx-1 hd anymore? Compared to the newer camera's that are true HD, I'd say fx-1 really doesn't need a moving 35mm adapter.

-Rh
Click to expand...

I suggest you try an FX1 with a static adapter before making false acusations...even better, I suggest you simply use an FX1.
 
Mtech said:
Well, MacGregor used the static G35 beta with FX1 and seemed to produce acceptable results with it.

But as already stated here, the "almost grainless" is a matter or perspective. One persons acceptable grain might be absolutelly unacceptable to other one.
Click to expand...

I tried a couple of static solution and the grain was always visible in HD. Sadly I never tried the G35...otherwise I probably wouldn't be trying other adapters right now. MacGregor said sometimes, depending on the circumstances, the grain is visible . He also made some tests with an XL HD and there were huge amounts of grain. There's a guy here at the forum who is shooting with the HVX200 and a G35. The footage looks straigt out film and even the noticable grain looks film like.
 
Last edited:
There's a guy here at the forum how is shooting with the HVX200 and a G35. The footage looks straigt out film and even the noticable grain looks film like.
Click to expand...

That's probably in large part to the HVX's credit.
 
Isn't HVX supposed to be the lowest resolution of all prosumer HD(V) cameras? So wouldn't it then work best with a static adapter?

The guy with the HVX and G35; I think I have seen some of his stuff also. There was that comercial about some neighborhood or something? Somehow I got the impression that he had got his hands on the new, moving G35 Beta. I am not sure of course.
 
Hey. So this is why my nose has been itching. :)

I DO shoot with a beta (static) G35 and an HVX. Can't say that I'd really recommend it. The grain is often visible when shooting in HD. I can get by because most of my stuff goes to SD broadcast and when it's downsampled the grain disappears. But for HD viewing.... eh... it's not THAT bad, but the static grain can be a bit distracting at times.

peace
jesse
 
Do you downsample in cam, or in post? If in post, any special tools used in the process?

Your footage looks excellent -- would love to have a better understanding of how much light you poured into most of the setups, and if you find the G35 Beta requires decent minimum light for a good, near grainless exposure. In other words -- do you find the adapter makes you inclined to shoot mostly sunny exteriors or bring a lot of light for interiors, and if so, what's the minimum wattage you bring to get things looking nice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top