Guerilla35 Commercial...
- Thread starter JHouser
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
I am neither endorsing nor not-endorsing it. I played around with a beta version of it. I would have to see a finished product before I could comment on how it actually performs. The only thing I feel comfortable in saying about the G35, at this time, is that I've seen what it can do and I was quite impressed. But it was not a final product, it was not final build quality, and pricing had not been set (nor do I think final pricing is locked in stone yet).
I will say this -- if you could make the same adapter for $110, and it performed as good or better than the G35 and Micro35, and chose to market it, you would *own* the market. I would love to see such a product, as I'm sure everyone else would.
I will say this -- if you could make the same adapter for $110, and it performed as good or better than the G35 and Micro35, and chose to market it, you would *own* the market. I would love to see such a product, as I'm sure everyone else would.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Regarding endorsement: do you mean a financial arrangement or something? Because neither the G35, nor Micro35, nor mini35 people have ever given me anything, other than two of them arranging for me to demo their product. There is no such thing as any sort of official endorsement -- just like everyone else, I tell people what I've used, what I think is good and what I think isn't.
For example, my highest "endorsement" goes to PrompterPeople for their teleprompters. 1/3 the price of anyone else, and they're well-designed and completely functional.
I also recommend Avenger C-stands -- they're less expensive than Matthews, and better-designed, I think.
If you wanted to make a business out of making static adapters, and you felt you could market it comfortably at $200, and you want an honest opinion about the product from someone who's used the mini35 and a pre-release beta version of the G35... well, send one over. If it's as good as the G35 and 1/5 the price, you'd better believe I'd give you a huge endorsement!
For example, my highest "endorsement" goes to PrompterPeople for their teleprompters. 1/3 the price of anyone else, and they're well-designed and completely functional.
I also recommend Avenger C-stands -- they're less expensive than Matthews, and better-designed, I think.
If you wanted to make a business out of making static adapters, and you felt you could market it comfortably at $200, and you want an honest opinion about the product from someone who's used the mini35 and a pre-release beta version of the G35... well, send one over. If it's as good as the G35 and 1/5 the price, you'd better believe I'd give you a huge endorsement!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Hey, no problem at all. It's not my forum, it's Jarred's, I just post here.
I'm serious though -- if you wanted to market something like this and thought you could hit a $200 price point, which covered your manufacturing costs as well, and it really performs, I think it'd be a very, very, very successful product.
I'm serious though -- if you wanted to market something like this and thought you could hit a $200 price point, which covered your manufacturing costs as well, and it really performs, I think it'd be a very, very, very successful product.
VideoPimp, how'd you make a cheaper adapter? I've put the pieces together with about 50 dollars worth of parts, and gotten good images, but nothing quite like this. What did you use as your diffusion screen? How much light is lost?
Here are my 50 dollar adapter images. Not bad, but not the same quality by any means. Practical for fun but not for shooting a feature:
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/3.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/4.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/5.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/6.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/7.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/9.jpg
Barry, one question that makes a huge difference to me. HUGE difference. How far could you stop down the G35 before static grain became an issue. Could you shoot at f5.6 or f4, or were you limited to f2.8 and below? With the mini35, how much further could you stop down before some grain or spinning pattern became visible? I don't need a definitive answer, and I know you may not want to say since it's a beta version you used, but I'm VERY curious. Just a little guidance or info would be very important, since I'd like to shoot most of my projects closer to f4 than f1.4.
Thanks so much.
Here are my 50 dollar adapter images. Not bad, but not the same quality by any means. Practical for fun but not for shooting a feature:
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/3.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/4.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/5.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/6.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/7.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~pfhorwitz/9.jpg
Barry, one question that makes a huge difference to me. HUGE difference. How far could you stop down the G35 before static grain became an issue. Could you shoot at f5.6 or f4, or were you limited to f2.8 and below? With the mini35, how much further could you stop down before some grain or spinning pattern became visible? I don't need a definitive answer, and I know you may not want to say since it's a beta version you used, but I'm VERY curious. Just a little guidance or info would be very important, since I'd like to shoot most of my projects closer to f4 than f1.4.
Thanks so much.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, I don't think that the beta version will have direct relevance to the shipping version; I don't know how much JHouser may have changed the design. So I don't believe any comment I could make about the stop-down-ability would be relevant, unless re-tested with the shipping model.
With the mini35, the more you stop down, the more visible the grain becomes, and the darker the edges of the frame get (or, put another way, the more a "hot spot" develops in the center). I would be surprised if any of these adapters behaved differently, it would seem to be endemic to the way lens irises and ground glasses work. If one were to be more resistant to the effect than others, my guess (and it is only a guess) would be the G35, simply because its ground glass needs to be finer than a mini35 or Micro35's ground glass needs to be.
With the mini35, the more you stop down, the more visible the grain becomes, and the darker the edges of the frame get (or, put another way, the more a "hot spot" develops in the center). I would be surprised if any of these adapters behaved differently, it would seem to be endemic to the way lens irises and ground glasses work. If one were to be more resistant to the effect than others, my guess (and it is only a guess) would be the G35, simply because its ground glass needs to be finer than a mini35 or Micro35's ground glass needs to be.
I downloaded a demo off the site that had some f5.6 footage that had no discernable hot spot. If it was there, it was no worse than minor vignetting but this was a pretty easy exposure so maybe it will appear in other shots. Still, it's promising, I guess. Maybe someone should invent some sort of condenser that adjusts for this stuff? Or maybe tilt/shift lenses would fix this issue?
Probably not...but still, this looks really promising. Thanks for the info, Barry. I know you can't say much, but just as long as I can shoot at f4 without problems and f5.6 occasionally (fix vignetting and grain in post), I'll be a happy camper. The design of the g35 seems very smart. I made something similar myself and was impressed by how usable it was. With professional optics, I could really see this being a production-worthy adapter. The micro35 looks fine, too, but a bit too large and cumbersome for my needs.
Probably not...but still, this looks really promising. Thanks for the info, Barry. I know you can't say much, but just as long as I can shoot at f4 without problems and f5.6 occasionally (fix vignetting and grain in post), I'll be a happy camper. The design of the g35 seems very smart. I made something similar myself and was impressed by how usable it was. With professional optics, I could really see this being a production-worthy adapter. The micro35 looks fine, too, but a bit too large and cumbersome for my needs.
JHouser
Well-known member
Ok, where do I start?
1. Barry has been a HUGE help to us. Don't bend his words. He feels that there needs to be a $300 adapter made. I think that would be great. It won't be us though. In order to get one of these adapters to $300 you would need to:
#1 make the housing of plastic
#2 Run numbers of over 5000
#3 Severely cripple the optics.
Sacrifices we are not willing to make. If you would like to make a $300 product, go ahead. But be careful of patents, they will bite you.
I can tell you that our optics alone cost us $150. That's our wholesale cost. Add to that mounts, screws, Machining, assembly and testing. All of this makes for a costly proposition. P+S product is well worth the price they ask mainly because of the fit and finish and the technology. Our product we feel is well worth what we will be asking for it. There are other options if you don't want to pay so much. (as you pointed out)
To anyone who wants to see some VIDEO_TS files (encoded at 8mb/s on a DigitaMediapress board) go to www.jonalden.com/Miguel/VIDEO_TS
You will need to download all of the contents of that folder then put it into a new folder called VIDEO_TS. Your DVD player can play it then. Blow it up complain about the grain, whatever. Just make your own judgment. We are in no way going to say that our adapter is grain less. However, the grain is subjective. Look at the demo with the dog. The F-stops are marked in the lower right hand corner. Make a judgment for yourself. Thank you all for your posts and your comments.
Cheers!
1. Barry has been a HUGE help to us. Don't bend his words. He feels that there needs to be a $300 adapter made. I think that would be great. It won't be us though. In order to get one of these adapters to $300 you would need to:
#1 make the housing of plastic
#2 Run numbers of over 5000
#3 Severely cripple the optics.
Sacrifices we are not willing to make. If you would like to make a $300 product, go ahead. But be careful of patents, they will bite you.
I can tell you that our optics alone cost us $150. That's our wholesale cost. Add to that mounts, screws, Machining, assembly and testing. All of this makes for a costly proposition. P+S product is well worth the price they ask mainly because of the fit and finish and the technology. Our product we feel is well worth what we will be asking for it. There are other options if you don't want to pay so much. (as you pointed out)
To anyone who wants to see some VIDEO_TS files (encoded at 8mb/s on a DigitaMediapress board) go to www.jonalden.com/Miguel/VIDEO_TS
You will need to download all of the contents of that folder then put it into a new folder called VIDEO_TS. Your DVD player can play it then. Blow it up complain about the grain, whatever. Just make your own judgment. We are in no way going to say that our adapter is grain less. However, the grain is subjective. Look at the demo with the dog. The F-stops are marked in the lower right hand corner. Make a judgment for yourself. Thank you all for your posts and your comments.
Cheers!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Jonathan -- that DVD footage is very nice! Very nice indeed. It's a big download, yes, but worth it. I think it should go a long way towards answering Policar's question.
VizPictures
Active member
www.jonalden.com seems to be down
I saw http://jonalden.com/Miguel/spotsoren400.mov a few days ago but can't see it anymore
Also the photo of the adapter http://www.jonalden.com/G35.jpg doen't appear in your previous post Jonathan
Same thing for www.jonalden.com/Miguel/VIDEO_TS
Is there something I missed here?
Thanks
I saw http://jonalden.com/Miguel/spotsoren400.mov a few days ago but can't see it anymore
Also the photo of the adapter http://www.jonalden.com/G35.jpg doen't appear in your previous post Jonathan
Same thing for www.jonalden.com/Miguel/VIDEO_TS
Is there something I missed here?
Thanks
The video_ts file worked for me. Try puting a "/" after it and it may work for you. I think the rest is down for bandwith reasons.
By the way, it looked great. I didn't notice any grain at f5.6 except the natural dvx grain and maybe a little barely visible pattern. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to insult the product. In fact, it seems like the best thing out there right now for the price. I know the image is good, the resolution loss minor, and the adapter is small, I just worry about the ability to shoot at f5.6, but that video seems to hint that it's a real possibility. I noticed no static grain at all at f4 and what I did notice at f5.6 could have been something else entirely. That's really quite impressive! I even defended the price tag, saying that the optics were likely expensive. The problem is that nothing's perfect, and while people would be doing anything for a $1,000 adapter a year or so, once it becomes a possibility, everyone wants even more. (Including me, so I shouldn't condemn.)
Just one tip: there's a world of difference between $999 and $1299 when it comes to marketing. I'm not expecting a good $299 adapter. I should know, I've tried to make one and while it's possible, it would take a lot of experimenting and sacrifices in low light performance. It would be possible, but the R+D cost would be offset by the relatively small market. Still, I don't doubt you guys could make on for $499 with nominally worse optics, but I understand how that would cannabalize your market. Good luck getting this thing out!
By the way, it looked great. I didn't notice any grain at f5.6 except the natural dvx grain and maybe a little barely visible pattern. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to insult the product. In fact, it seems like the best thing out there right now for the price. I know the image is good, the resolution loss minor, and the adapter is small, I just worry about the ability to shoot at f5.6, but that video seems to hint that it's a real possibility. I noticed no static grain at all at f4 and what I did notice at f5.6 could have been something else entirely. That's really quite impressive! I even defended the price tag, saying that the optics were likely expensive. The problem is that nothing's perfect, and while people would be doing anything for a $1,000 adapter a year or so, once it becomes a possibility, everyone wants even more. (Including me, so I shouldn't condemn.)
Just one tip: there's a world of difference between $999 and $1299 when it comes to marketing. I'm not expecting a good $299 adapter. I should know, I've tried to make one and while it's possible, it would take a lot of experimenting and sacrifices in low light performance. It would be possible, but the R+D cost would be offset by the relatively small market. Still, I don't doubt you guys could make on for $499 with nominally worse optics, but I understand how that would cannabalize your market. Good luck getting this thing out!
Never been called a bot before. I'm all for the G35. From what I've seen so far it's a quality product. A lot of time, research, and money was put into the project and the creators deserve to make some profit.
If you want to spend 200 bucks on an adaptor you could always buy the mini35 plans. You can't expect people to give away a product for free. Be realistic pimp.
If you want to spend 200 bucks on an adaptor you could always buy the mini35 plans. You can't expect people to give away a product for free. Be realistic pimp.
macgregor
Veteran
Yes, it is a piece of metal and glass.
Yes, it is $999 which is a lot of money when you hold a "simple" tube in your hand.
BUT it gives you so much film quality that maybe they are the best $1,000 that I have ever invested. I bought it just for pleasure (making shortfilms and things with non-profit) but I have allready use it for commercial purposes, and man, quite a big difference.
It is not the best solution for sure (35mm film is still is much better), but considering what you can get with your old nikon lenses and your allready purchased DV camera, this is priceless.
Yes, it is $999 which is a lot of money when you hold a "simple" tube in your hand.
BUT it gives you so much film quality that maybe they are the best $1,000 that I have ever invested. I bought it just for pleasure (making shortfilms and things with non-profit) but I have allready use it for commercial purposes, and man, quite a big difference.
It is not the best solution for sure (35mm film is still is much better), but considering what you can get with your old nikon lenses and your allready purchased DV camera, this is priceless.
JHouser
Well-known member
Policar said:
I apologize for posting right after you without specifying whom I was responding to, however, the intended recipient does not even warrant a response. I appreciate the defense you have given us. You know first hand the time put into these and I thank you for your input. Good job on your adapter by the way. It's looking quite nice!