Hvx+g35+slow Motion

What you are seeing and is quite visible throughout the image is the texture/surface of the element. You may be mistaking some of this as compression artifacts. when the element spins you no longer see all that junk. You get more or less the same effect on the m2 if you forget to turn on the motor that is why I'm so sure about this and why it is unusable in the current design.
-A
Aloha
 
Poi Boy said:
What you are seeing and is quite visible throughout the image is the texture/surface of the element. You may be mistaking some of this as compression artifacts. when the element spins you no longer see all that junk. You get more or less the same effect on the m2 if you forget to turn on the motor that is why I'm so sure about this and why it is unusable in the current design.
-A
Aloha
Click to expand...

weird. :0
 
im.thatoneguy said:
I was wondering the same thing about the fence. Any idea what was causing that? Were there two fences? Did you have a matte box/filter creating weird reflections?

Was the image reflecting off of the achromat?
Click to expand...


Two fences.
There was a wire gate that was wide open and in effect overlaping the fence. No matte boxes/filters used.
 
My god.

That looks great. I have no problem with the grain either. Actually, it's quite pleasing.

It's images like these that make people go crazy with gear lust.

HVX and G35. What a killer combo.

Great work. Love the shots.

-rook
 
Poi Boy said:
These are the issues that makes the g35 unusable for paying work till they get the element moving !!!
-A
Click to expand...

I just got paid for this so here goes your theory. :)

Seriously though - I agree that a spinning adapter is a superior solution and can't wait for Cinemek to release the spinning version. I am in line to get it as soon as it comes out. But the way I see it there really are no standards that render something usable or unusable. It is all very subjective. I read these boards often and I constantly see people proclaim various pieces of equipment not good enough or unusable. I read posts where people swear that HDV is "not good enough". Just recently I have been blown away with an HDV filmout. Wasn't Macgergor's SIMILO shot with a Sony with a static G35? What a great film! I see people complain about the noise of HVX and therefore proclaim that camera unusable. Some people even state that HVX is not high definition. Even Super16 is not good enough for some people.

So what determines a piece of equipment usable? Type of project, desired style, delivery medium, and of course a client (or audience). I have made money using a DVX with a static G35 and the clients were always happy. There might be clients out there who, like Poi Boy, have higher standars and wouldn't accept an HD footage captured with a static adapter. In these cases this setup will, in fact, be unusable. But I don't think you can proclaim it flat unusable for all paying work.

I think we are all video geeks who tend to sit with our noses pressed against the screen looking for problems. An average viewer doesn't see half as much as we do.
Here's an example. Today I showed this clip to a group of film students (graduating seniors) who focus on post-production. You would think they are a sophisticated viewer, right? I have been talking to them about compression and showing examples. I haven't mentioned the adapter and I suspect most don't even know they exist or what they do. I showed it on a 50inch plasma and asked about their guess on the file size. They didn't look at it up close. They were sitting about 10-15 feet away which seems like a normal distance to watch TV. Guess what. They thought they were looking at uncompressed HD! I know it seems like a strech. I couldn't belive it either.

What's the point of this rant? We are lucky to live in times where we have lots of really cool toys to play with. I, personally, feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm running out of excuses and it's time for me to accept that I DO in fact have gear that is good enough.

It's a pretty scary thought when you think about it. It implies that if my work sucks I have only my skills to blame. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) Cheers!
 
Wojciech Lorenc said:
I just got paid for this so here goes your theory. :)

Seriously though - I agree that a spinning adapter is a superior solution and can't wait for Cinemek to release the spinning version. I am in line to get it as soon as it comes out. But the way I see it there really are no standards that render something usable or unusable. It is all very subjective. I read these boards often and I constantly see people proclaim various pieces of equipment not good enough or unusable. I read posts where people swear that HDV is "not good enough". Just recently I have been blown away with an HDV filmout. Wasn't Macgergor's SIMILO shot with a Sony with a static G35? What a great film! I see people complain about the noise of HVX and therefore proclaim that camera unusable. Some people even state that HVX is not high definition. Even Super16 is not good enough for some people.

So what determines a piece of equipment usable? Type of project, desired style, delivery medium, and of course a client (or audience). I have made money using a DVX with a static G35 and the clients were always happy. There might be clients out there who, like Poi Boy, have higher standars and wouldn't accept an HD footage captured with a static adapter. In these cases this setup will, in fact, be unusable. But I don't think you can proclaim it flat unusable for all paying work.

What's the point of this rant? We are lucky to live in times where we have lots of really cool toys to play with. I, personally, feel like I'm reaching the point where I'm running out of excuses and it's time for me to accept that I DO in fact have gear that is good enough.

It's a pretty scary thought when you think about it. It implies that if my work sucks I have only my skills to blame. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) Cheers!
Click to expand...

Man, that was beautifuly put. It's like you pulled it out of my mind. I agreed with you 100%.
 
Wojciech,

Nice clip and look. I liked it.

You’re totally right in saying how well equipment works is a subjective thing...

While I realize this was the static version of the G35, for my own personal taste, the GG diffusion is insufficient. As Fatbird mentions, there is an aerial image around objects that are out-of-focus. This is most visible in the fence wires, towards the end, and around the pipes on the wall in the very last part. Basically, the edges of the objects should not be as distinctly discernable. This effect usually comes from insufficient diffusion (according to my own personal standards). Having the GG spin or vibrate will not change this, as it is due to the GG itself.

Now, again, diffusion/bokeh is quite subjective. Some people prefer or don’t mind light diffusion while others want completely blurred bokeh.

Good job on the clip!
 
I know what you guys mean by the aerial image around the objects. I noticed that too. I noticed that this usually happens to the foreground objects that are pretty close to the focus plane. Once you shift the focus farther away the diffusion looks more like it would if shot on film. Take a look at the 4th shot in a sequence. This is shot through the fence as well and the wires look more evenly diffused.

I honestly don't know if this is inherent to this adapter only or to all adapters in general. Keep in mind that I have a very early beta version of the G35 and this might be corrected in the released version. Would I like to see an even distribution? Sure! Will I keep shooting with this meanwhile? You bet!
 
Wojciech Lorenc said:
I read these boards often and I constantly see people proclaim various pieces of equipment not good enough or unusable. I read posts where people swear that HDV is "not good enough". Just recently I have been blown away with an HDV filmout. Wasn't Macgergor's SIMILO shot with a Sony with a static G35? What a great film! I see people complain about the noise of HVX and therefore proclaim that camera unusable. Some people even state that HVX is not high definition. Even Super16 is not good enough for some people.
Click to expand...

I believe macgregor has a hi-lux G35 beta unit, and he shot SIMILO on a DVX100. A lot of his other footage is done with a Sony HDV, and everything looks incredible :) I think a lot of that has to do with macgregor!
 
Last edited:
Wojciech Lorenc said:
Jonathan just mentioned in the other thread that the production unit will not have the arial image. So here you go :)
Click to expand...

Arial image...
Is that the double image thing we've been talking about?
 
Lol. No the "Double image" turned out to be just a double object.

I'm glad it was the way the world was, because I couldn't for the life of me figure out what optical property would create that effect. Especially since if it was an internal reflection, it was reflecting in the wrong direction!
 
im.thatoneguy said:
Lol. No the "Double image" turned out to be just a double object.
Click to expand...

You sure? I see it in more places than just the fence. Every shot with blur in this video exhibits this effect to some extent or another.
 
Wojciech, I see the minor detail everybody is focusing on but for me this is 100% acceptable. The whole thing looks astonishingly beautiful for me. It IS "film". If people think about it, even with this "flaw" the G35 still beats the living crap out of most other adapters out there.
 
tigeba said:
I believe macgregor has a hi-lux G35 beta unit, and he shot SIMILO on a DVX100. A lot of his other footage is done with a Sony HDV, and everything looks incredible :) I think a lot of that has to do with macgregor!
Click to expand...


Macgregor wasn't Similo shot on the FX1?
 
Could someone mirror this possibly? The server is moving at the speed of the US governmet (*BA-dum CHA*).

But, seriously folks, I'll be here through Thursday!

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it. Very good footage.
 
Last edited:
Yup, Barry you're right. Similo is one of the video footage that it's possible to get from DV, as well, DVX is. Otherwise, the Miguel/macgregor's choice in order to XL-H1 is a significant tip (the best available definition to use with a 1/3" camera in order to shallow DOF goal?), also it will be if Steven Dempsey will go with Canon instead HVX or even HD100.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top