Poi Boy
Well-known member
Finally getting around to posting a test. 720P, 48 and 60fps cineV / 50 meg file H264 compression.
Aloha
-A
http://web.mac.com/poiboy/buddies.mov
Aloha
-A
http://web.mac.com/poiboy/buddies.mov
HVX/M2 test footage
- Thread starter Poi Boy
- Start date
Elton
Veteran
Hot damn!! Very nice!! It still looks quite sharp and vivid in 720, but oh that sweet shallow DOF. Very filmic looking, thanks for sharing that.
...and thank you very much for posting it in HD. Very helpful. My only incredibly minor criticism has to do with the slow mo. That looks like 1/60 shutter. Still has a tiny bit of video slow mo feel to it. Try shooting 1/100 or faster to get a little more clarity and less motion blur for the effect. Just my own preference, but it still looks amazing.
The M2 looks like the 35mm adapter to beat at the moment.
...and thank you very much for posting it in HD. Very helpful. My only incredibly minor criticism has to do with the slow mo. That looks like 1/60 shutter. Still has a tiny bit of video slow mo feel to it. Try shooting 1/100 or faster to get a little more clarity and less motion blur for the effect. Just my own preference, but it still looks amazing.
The M2 looks like the 35mm adapter to beat at the moment.
Last edited:
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
LOOKS GREAT !
usually, i hate 35mm adaptor's softness.
This one is absolutely SHARP !
Who is the manufacturer ?
What is the cost ?
thanks !
usually, i hate 35mm adaptor's softness.
This one is absolutely SHARP !
Who is the manufacturer ?
What is the cost ?
thanks !
DavidBeier
Veteran
How much does this adapter cost?
Poi Boy
Well-known member
Hi David,
I paid around $500. but then added the rails..so around $900. It is really an awesome tool, worth every penny. I was reading from another post that saw my footage on the red rock site; they are not convinced because they don't see the difference in the DOF. Next time I'll post something with no DOF to make the point but if you don't see it in this footage then you don't get it.
Aloha
-A
I paid around $500. but then added the rails..so around $900. It is really an awesome tool, worth every penny. I was reading from another post that saw my footage on the red rock site; they are not convinced because they don't see the difference in the DOF. Next time I'll post something with no DOF to make the point but if you don't see it in this footage then you don't get it.
For instance , the ending shot of the girl is tack sharp but everything behind her is out of focus...the stock lens would look totally different.rgdfilms said:
Aloha
-A
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
So, the M2 is a 35mm lens adapter? Looks VERY good. I'm impressed.
What were settings to export the clip to quicktime? I;ve been playing around with and just havent totally happy with the results I get.
What were settings to export the clip to quicktime? I;ve been playing around with and just havent totally happy with the results I get.
darwinandpaine
Well-known member
Elton said:
Elton's right. I noticed this the first day I played around with the slow mo --- just switching to 1/120 makes a huge difference in sharpness and clarity. I didn't notice that much of a difference at higher speeds, but going from 1/60 to 1/120 was significant.
This stuff looks great, btw! Love the music! What lens (lenses?) did you use?
coolguy007
Active member
How did you deal with the flipped footage? Did you buy a monitor or what....I'm waiting for my m2 to come in...and im not sure what to do about the flip
There are a multitude of threads on this board that go into great detail on the many aspects of getting a film-look. Shallow DOF is not the only thing, but it is a big part of the equation. I'd say it's essential. A good, sharp 35mm adapter is an important tool if you want your movies to look like a professional feature film.ropbo said:
Not sure what you mean about Polanski movies, The Pianist, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion, all have plenty of shallow DOF, as do most films shot on 35mm.
Last edited:
R Gale said:
Quote from American Cinematographer:
"Polanski’s pictures are distinguished by the use of very few wide focal lengths. Edelman recalls that The Pianist was principally shot with two lenses, 27mm and 32mm, and he notes that Oliver Twist was shot with a 21mm and a 27mm. Lens choices “happen on the set,” says the cinematographer. “Roman has been shooting his movies with one or two lenses all his life. He likes wide lenses because he likes to see the characters integrated with the space.” The director adds, “A wide-angle lens gives you more depth of field, which is important when things that happen in the background have to be sharp, so that counts also. Of course, there is also more sensation of movement with a wide angle because you see more of the perspective change — the things on the sides of the frame move more than the things in front.”"
I have "Knife in the Water" which I've seen a thousand times and the one thing that film doesn't have is shallow DOF. And it still looks like film ... lol
R Gale said:
Yeah I know I've been following this forum with great interest.
Last edited:
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
Do you have a picture of the M2 installed on the HVX ?
thanks
thanks
Poi Boy
Well-known member
Ropbo,
off course shallow depth of field isn't the only thing, that was my point; I intentionally did not post something that only featured shallow depth of field, I posted something that is very film like. Some filmakers like a lot of depth and others don't but the ones that use a lot of DOF still don't have a video look MOSTLY because they still have far less DOF than the same scene would have if shot on video.
Aloha
-A
off course shallow depth of field isn't the only thing, that was my point; I intentionally did not post something that only featured shallow depth of field, I posted something that is very film like. Some filmakers like a lot of depth and others don't but the ones that use a lot of DOF still don't have a video look MOSTLY because they still have far less DOF than the same scene would have if shot on video.
Aloha
-A
Very few wide focal lengths? I think the author meant to say mostly wide focal lengths. 27 and 32mm are wide lenses.ropbo said:
"principally" shot, but not exclusively, right?ropbo said:
I think Edelman's "two lenses" comment is not to be taken 100% literally. In The Pianist... as I recall, the scene with the family's POV from across the street as the old man is thrown off the balcony... That's gotta be a longer lens than a 32mm. And I seem to remember a number of tight closeups of Adrien Brody and his fingers on the piano keys, that did not seem like a 27 or 32mm lens. As for his other work, I especially recall blurry backgrounds in Chinatown (and Tess) which were both shot 2.35:1 anamorphic... anamorphic lenses are known for their very shallow depth of field... shallower than spherical lenses.
Absolutely, some films have lots of deep focus shots (Citizen Kane included!), but that does not change the fact that film has much shallower DOF than 1/3" video CCD's.
"Knife in the Water" still looks like film because it is film.ropbo said:
...so ropbo, are you gonna get a 35mm adapter or what?
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) Poi Boy, great work! Very filmlike shots.
R Gale said:"Knife in the Water" still looks like film because it is film.
Yeah I know, I was just trying to bring some humor to my post ... lol. I love this film by the way ... very original camera angles.
R Gale said:...so ropbo, are you gonna get a 35mm adapter or what?
Actually I am (and will probably go with the M2 adapter). I'm just trying to decide which camera to buy which by the way is not an easy task. I keep changing my mind every 5 minutes.