Has the sudden spike in HDSLR's been the death toll for 35mm adapters

exactly. LOL! anyway, I posted these over at another thread to prove my point on perceived sharpness and actual one.

There are a lot more going for the DSLRs beyond sharpness. The aesthetic is there. The empowering lightness and freedom. -Of movement, lens choices, tight spaces, low angles, low light, - I could go on and on...

and those points I mentioned translates to business and financial sense.

Lighter gear saves me porterage fees, baggage check in. Grip wages.

Low light translates that I get to finish my shoot faster rather than add another day due to vanishing daylight.
 
Last edited:
Ted and I have been posting contrasting charts on another thread so I'll throw mine in here as well.

Below is a Link to some charts I posted a few months ago comparing Canon 7D with EX-1 & Blade also some HVX charts (without adapter). Clearly the EX + Blade combination blows away the DSLR in sharpness. Similar results with a Letus . To my eye comparing the Blade/EX combo vs the Canon 7D and 5D with L glass on an interview subject I also chose the Blade EX as a sharper more natural and pleasing picture.

However you will get much more sharpness with an EX-1 + adapter than an HVX200 or most any other camera. So your mileage will vary depending on what adapter/videocamera combo you are comparing to. In some cases the DSLR will be sharper.

A friend is now shooting 2 cam interviews with EX-1/Letus and Canon as 2nd camera. They recently had to throw out the Canon on one CEO shoot because a barely noticeable weave pattern on CEO's shirt moired lake crazy on the Canon. They weren't using monitors for the Canon and only discovered it in editing.


http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=188873

By the way these Canon shots were probably shot with default settings so the detail might be higher than I would use now. Don't know how that would affect the chart. Maybe I'll test with my T2i now that I own one.
 
In those chart tests what jumps out at me is contrast...in which the DSLR looked much better. And we all know how contrast adds to the perceived sharpness of an image. That is what people see when they look at these DSLR images (especially when used with nice lens that don't wash out). When watching standard footage most people are not pixel peeping other than us here on these sites. So thier first impression is...wow...nice footage. As long as you don't A/B between cameras (where the difference might stick out) then it's all good.

Also, two things suprised me. One was the HVX's image had just as much (and even more in places) aliasing going on as the 7D. Maybe that is to be expected. But the second thing was the EX-1's image...is it just me or do we see "color moire" and aliasing going on? Of course not to the same degree as the Canon...but it's definitely there. How come no ones commenting about that?

I know the tests were done some months back but what was your settings when shooting on the Canon? Did you have in camera sharpening all the way down? Also did you desaturate the colors in cam? This helps me a lot with the aliasing and color moire.

Regardless test charts are test charts....I know I don't shoot them. The overall aesthetic of the final image is what sticks out for me.
 
Ian, in the case of the Sony, early last year we did a test, when the nikon D90 came out, I compared it with another CMOS chipped shoulder mounted Sony camera we had for our consumer department, the HD1000.

I was surprised to see that "color moire" and aliasing similar to the D90 then and the 7D now.

So basing on that, I figured its part of the nature of these CMOS chipped cameras.

Heres the chart on the Sony.
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachments/jvc-gy-hd-series-camera-systems/10461d1231954368-jvcs-d90-sony-hd1000-side-side-tests-chart-sony.jpg

Heres a D90 also to compare it with the 7D.
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachments/jvc-gy-hd-series-camera-systems/10458d1231954368-jvcs-d90-sony-hd1000-side-side-tests-d90-50mm-f2-8-shrp0cont-3.jpg
 
teddybear said:
exactly. LOL! anyway, I posted these over at another thread to prove my point on perceived sharpness and actual one.

There are a lot more going for the DSLRs beyond sharpness. The aesthetic is there. The empowering lightness and freedom. -Of movement, lens choices, tight spaces, low angles, low light, - I could go on and on...

and those points I mentioned translates to business and financial sense.

Lighter gear saves me porterage fees, baggage check in. Grip wages.

Low light translates that I get to finish my shoot faster rather than add another day due to vanishing daylight.
Click to expand...


I saw this test over on the other boards and I was wait a damn minute, I know those cams, Some guy is using Teddy's pics!!
 
Re moire on the EX-1 - As I remember it disappears alot when you zoom in?, but yes it is there but not nearly to the degree as in the Nikon.

Also I think the clean Ex was shot with detail at 0 which is too high and contributes to moire and res stays high when you turn it down. Of course same is true for Canon shot but I don't think the moire goes away when sharpness is lowered to be replaced by resolution.


Yes exactly my point about the HVX - far less resolution so it depends what you're cmparing the DSLR's to. But I find the HVX too soft.

Re: Contrast The increased and to me excessive contrast is exactly one of the things I don't like about the DSLR's. My Canon just doesn't seem to have the range I get from the EX/Blade combo. Now that seems different from what it said in the "Zacuto shootout. And this test might have bveen conducted with contrast at detente which I lower on my T2i. In my head shots I didn't like the contrast n the Canon. That may be just my taste though. Your right it might make it look "snappier". I might trying to diss the DSLR here. JHust trying to keep the conversation honest.

lenny
 
I once used the XHA1 and the Cinemek G35 adapter combo. I wish I still had it sometimes. But when I go back and compare footage (old adapter stuff to what I have been getting from these DSLRs) the over all bokeh and image quality of the DSLRs rocks it! The in focus areas are sharpper than adapters and the bokeh is better (but I won't open that can of worms). And the ease of using these new cameras is so much better than using a dof adapter.

From first hand experience, I will tell you that yes, DSLRs have started the death of dof adapters. I used to sell a dof adapter (not one of the big ones of course) but a couple of yers ago I would sell about 25 per month. When The 5DMKII came out sales slowed down a bit, but after the 7D was out, sales came to a dead halt. Needless to say, I have shifted my efforts to film jobs now :)
 
it was the death toll for mine....

at first it wasn't. at the end of the day, my ex1 + redrock was higher rez, easier to shoot, and had better compression. but once i "got it", that despite these technical hurdles, the dslr just simply looks more like film, more organic, i sold that redrock as quick as i could and haven't looked back....

DSLR FTW.
 
Adapter Set Up - still around for a while

Adapter Set Up - still around for a while

I think it's pretty simple. If you need CCD sensors, then you would still want an ENG camera with an adapter. If you want a large sensor and you're OK with a CMOS sensor then a DSLR (or mirror-less) is the way to go.

They're cheaper, smaller, more discrete, and way better in low light. If all things were equal I would prefer to have 3 CCD's, but all the other advantages are enough to forgive the always improving state of rolling-shutter artifacts.

I think an even bigger hit to the adapter market comes from the AF100. It's not exactly ENG, but it is a dedicated video camera that can be used with almost any lens ever without any loss of light. It does have a CMOS sensor but purportedly handles the rolling shutter issues very well.

At least as far as independent cinema is concerned I would prefer an AF100 over a HPX170 with whichever adapter you prefer.

Bottom line - If money is an issue and emulating film is your thing, then forget the adapter and get a GH2 (or a 7D or whatever.) Invest the money you save in more future proof lenses.

The Adapter setup will still be around for a while, though. To a lot of people a global shutter is a big deal and for some good reasons. An adapter rig also gives you the option between ENG with a servo zoom and a cinema style setup.

I would love to have all three for different uses.

Edit: Also, I don't think any DSLR style camera has 4:2:2 color sampling or uses the DVCPRO format.
 
Last edited:
Tim Naylor said:
This is definitely the feature I'll miss the most. Being able to make variable primes out of your set of cheap nikons was a great feature. You could cover your range with just three lenses. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I agree. Having even just a few MM of a servo-controlled zoom Is nice. Both for adjusting the field of view for primes, and also occasionally in a shot for a slow smooth zoom.
 
Yup.

Bought a T2i a couple of weeks ago thinking I would hate it. After a week with it I sold my Brevis adapter and I'm now shooting pretty much everything on my T2i w/ Juicelink rather than my XHA1.
 
And just think....it was an XHA1 (along with a couple of lesser Canon cameras) that was used to film the (non-low budget) movie "Crank 2."
 
Once again, it boils down to tools, The Canons worked for their style of shooting. To bad the camera cant fix a sucky story though. hehe
 
I think Maran nailed it, but my to cents:
We started on an experimental little project a few years ago, before the DSLR revolution hit. It's a 'heart' project for us (ie: no revenue stream in sight) so we've had to work it in our spare time on a minuscule budget. We started with HVX 200a and a lens adapter, borrowed a 7D for a while when they came out, ended up with a pair of GH13's. Right now I am in post with shots from all the above, and I am seeing some things. Keep in mind - everything looks good on its own, now it is going together side-by-side.
The Cannon is too contrasty for me, and produces a 'thin neg' that can't be pushed around much in post. The GH 13's are good at most things, although I have bumped into chroma build-up a few times. The 200a/adapter combo (surprise surprise) utterly sux in low-light, and is a real pain if it was not set up perfectly. To me, however, some of best-looking shots we have have came from the adapter. Oh, sure -- we had a really good grip on that particular shoot and the lighting was excellent, but I am seeing something else...a hint of sub-surface scattering that came from the fact that we were photographing a projected image. I can fake that look on other cameras sometimes with the old 'clone-blur-overlay' trick, but it looks so much better on those lens adapter shots. It is a subtlety, but it is gorgeous when it works - It looks 'un-digital.' And yes (before you even ask) I am over 50, I admit my bias....
In conclusion -- none of the cameras was best at everything. We still have access to the 7D and will use it from time to time. I will probably not use the 200a/adapter combo as a main camera again, but there is no way I will get rid of it. In the right conditions, for the right project, it is the best-looking thing I have.
As for the suckiness of my story.....yikes, I really don't know. We will be trying to advance a very complex plot with extremely short 'burst' episodes, and so far we are not happy. Time will tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top