I miss static.

K

kyledroid

Well-known member
Is static officially DOA? It's always been my opinion that static designs rendered sharper images and much better bokeh. Has anyone been experimenting with any new diffusers or has this subject been explored and researched to death by now? Also, whatever happened to the holographic and wax adapter solutions of yesteryear? Did they up and die?

Let's breathe some life back into the ole' girl we call static, you guys! I mean it seemed to be the holy grail of adapters that sadly just died away and was swept under the rug we call... internet oblivion. Are there any new fresh ideas? Bring back static!!!
 
Last edited:
isn't Static grainy? I mean I always thought that the vibration/spinning revolution (Pun not intended) was created to eliminate the issue of grain that plagues static adaptors.
 
If the GG was made as thin as possible and the grain on the GG was such that it would be micro size dots on the lens itself, could that be the recipe for the holy grail of a static GG?
 
Spartacus said:
You should check cinemek.com once in a while...
Click to expand...

Oh trust me i have been. I've been a g35 enthusiast for the longest time. But let's not hold our breath here. They've delayed and delayed and delayed to the point where Im not going to get my hopes up anymore. If they come out with something then great, but im not going to wait for them to do so!!! Also, that's not a newly designed adapter they placed on their home page. I remember seeing that design long before they took the forums down. I know the sites been updated, but, still, dont hold your breath.

"isn't Static grainy? I mean I always thought that the vibration/spinning revolution (Pun not intended) was created to eliminate the issue of grain that plagues static adaptors."-- MalcolmOng

Spinning/vibrating adapters were created to eliminate grain...thats true. But with certain trade-offs: portability, resolution, bokeh, and power restraints can all be issues. Portability/ ease of use can be a big problem with larger adapters...thats no duh. And ive always felt that static adapters were much sharper resolution-wise. Of course, bokeh is subjective, but I've always felt static designs delivered a much more pleasing and cinematic bokeh. And there are no power requirements for static. Grain has always been an issue even with spinning /vibrating adapters. The question is what's an acceptable amount of grain for an adapter? Besides, some people enjoy the grain. It adds to the "film look".

Reneh, all i can say is try it out, or if someone else has already to post it here and let us know.
 
I know there have been some people who have used and were very pleased with the image from using a a Beattie Intenscreen.. just with the complaint that the screen scratched easily. Of course with the higher price tag this can make things difficult, but what was the end result of using the Beattie? it seems to be a dead issue right now, but a solid answer would be nice?

Anyone?
 
I've used only one static adaptor and that was the Movietube with Zeiss Superspeed Primes. It was unacceptably soft as well as ergonomically awkward. It lost well over two stops of light (before the lens). Also, after 5.6 the texture began to show. I don't think it could even resolve to standard def it was so soft. My SG blows it away in all respects (edge to edge, bokeh, light loss, sharpness, grain, etc). Regarding grain, the problem with static grain is that it's stationary not randomly placed like film grain or ground glass grain. Static grain seems more like a fixture of the camera like a filter or something than an orgranic texture. It's especially annoying when you pan or tilt. Sometimes I find the ground glass of a spinner or vibrating GG to look cool when it's off and often entertained using the footage from this grainy look. But the moment you've camera movement, you say, I'll do it in post.

Noting sexy about static grain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top