Is this the nail in the coffin for Adaptor rigs?

DSLR doesn't kill anything sub $1K by a long shot. I have both systems and shoot lots of interviews and the adapter is way more reliable , better looking picture and easier to deal with for an interview set up than a DSLR, no comparison. For some things I prefer the DSLR but its still got lots of problems. The image can look beautiful, and the its fun, lightweight and fast, but as HD its jut barely there and the moirie can utterly screw you at any moment.
 
Lenilenapi said:
DSLR doesn't kill anything sub $1K by a long shot. I have both systems and shoot lots of interviews and the adapter is way more reliable , better looking picture and easier to deal with for an interview set up than a DSLR, no comparison. For some things I prefer the DSLR but its still got lots of problems. The image can look beautiful, and the its fun, lightweight and fast, but as HD its jut barely there and the moirie can utterly screw you at any moment.
Click to expand...

What adapters are we talking about when we're saying camcorder + adapter + glass = under 1K?
 
Yes - at the end of the year Panny and by NAB next year Sony will have dedicated 35mm video cameras - that will indeed be the end of the Adapter market but what's more it will be the end of the DSLR craze as those things will have much better quality and will be set-up properly for video. In 2 years a Canon 5D will be ancient history for video.
 
It's a nail in the coffin for adaptor rigs and DSLR!

I think as soon as somebody comes out with a EX1 type video camera with 35 DOP, the nail will be in the coffin of all DSLR and adaptor rigs. We are less than a year away from that. The low low budget infi filmaker will be able to purchase older adaptor and DSLR rigs on EBAY at giveaway prices. I will say nothing about the Scarlett.

Here is the proof straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu_68icPe28
 
Yes, but the one thing I would like to point out is that there is no real reason to make 4/3" or even S35 sensors. Full Frame is the way to go. Unless the video world is going to embrace PL mount lenses tomorrow, wide angle capacity is limited with lenses on S35 mounts. There are hundreds of thousands of S35 lenses out there, but there are MILLIONS of still photography lenses out there which are designed for FF35. You can always use a crop on a FF for PL and the like, so why not have the choice? As a larger sensor improves low light capacity and resolution, I see no reason why video needs to limit itself to old cinema-style formats.
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
Yes, but the one thing I would like to point out is that there is no real reason to make 4/3" or even S35 sensors. Full Frame is the way to go. \
Click to expand...

Um, very few Hollywood productions actually shoot full frame, not because they can't, but because it's extremely difficult to get accurate focus on a full frame sensor when your DOF is razor thin. Just go watch The Dark Knight, some of which was shot on 70mm film, and notice how many shots are soft or out of focus on that. On your typical indie film where there's not a ton of camera movement, you might be fine, but on big films with a lot of dolly, crane or handheld, pulling focus for full-frame is a nightmare. There's very few cinema style lenses out there optimized for full frame anyway, and photography lenses, while fine for the indie crowd, is not ideal for film purposes.
 
Sensors, codecs, bitrates... these are technical details. The bottom line is depth of field. This entire 35 rig pop culture revolves around that. Both DSLR and adaptors have been attemps to resolve the depth of field issue with patches until the majors would release proper solutions at affordabe prices. That time has arrived. With the release of limited DOF video cameras the circle will be completed. It will lead to the unavoidable obsolescence of the following:

DSLR cameras
35mm adaptor rigs

...and possibly...

Any classic professional video camera with wide video DOF.
Many expensive cinema type video camera.

...it will also lead to the end of the reign of the "35 DOP fix it patch" generation such as Philip Bloom, Tom Guilmette, etc... and once Sony gets on the badwagon of cinema accessories such as Follow Focus and Matt Boxes it will be the end of companies such as Redrock.

By the time Scarlett is released, Sony may already have captured that market.

Sony will sweep everything away once they jump on the bandwagon.
 
Just used the 7d and T2I on "The Secret Diary of The Exorcist " for SyFy/ NBC-Universal and a Cinemek G35 on a EX1R. Wish we had the profile picture settings the Sony has, (firmware please)
We were very impressed, not as filmic or epic looking as the the 35mm adapter combo, but for tight shots with a good lens they were great! Added a Juiced link as well for audio, Its like having different Golf clubs or tools for the right situation, still mainly B-roll for us really , Cheers
 

Attachments

  • 7dlocation.jpg
    7dlocation.jpg
    82.1 KB · Views: 0
  • 7d-1.jpg
    7d-1.jpg
    298.9 KB · Views: 0
DOF adaptors and grain

DOF adaptors and grain

Am I the only one who thinks that the grain that the DOF adaptors and slight softness is something that is still desirable? I am sure the Af100 will be really sharp but don't the adaptors have a look that adds to the allure akin to film?
I have a GH1,Canon 5D and HFS10 and SGblade. IMHO the best picture emotionally comes from the HFS10 and SGblade. I have compared screen grabs of stills from the DSLRs vs HDMI capture Cineform grabs of the blade and HFS10 and the adaptor footage had a 'thickness' that I loved. The DSLR stills were amazing of course and if we could get uncompressed out of them it would be a picture we have all been waiting for.This comparison was in good light of course and the DSLRs kill it once the sun goes down.

http://www.vimeo.com/10672620

I know this sounds crazy but if I were to get the AF100 I would experiment with it on the SGblade just to have that emotional look only adaptors can give. Am I alone in this? It would offer full frame as opposed to the crop, light loss would be a non issue and it would have the nostalgic look .:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

One of the things I really don't like, and I may be alone in this is how the new DSLRs at close to wide open draw too much attention to the bokeh especially at night. The razor sharp 'blurred' areas doesn't do it for me.This is a lot less on the DOF adaptors because they blur the edges. for example........

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theleggett/4395321233/sizes/l/in/set-72157623527995554/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/syf0n/4453750366/in/set-72157623669052808/

Is it possible that when the ability to control DOF came along,many of us fell in love with the tool instead of the technique. All over Vimeo and youtube we have videos drawing attention to the bokeh and background blur ; but I thought that we were supposed to use DOF to draw attention to a specific part of the screen - the talent - not the background!!!! Cool bokeh dude, awesome blurr, cowabanga on the depth of field bro!!!!! Even I have been guilty of this on a few occasions inspired by names that promote it. I hope the new breed of camcorders do not lead to some more of these nausea inducing mostly blurred type of videos. Some big names are guilty of promoting this wide spread nonsense. Some use of it is good but all the time? I have learned to shoot mostly at F4 now.

http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=32919

Guy who made this said it looked a little better than the ex1 and adaptor.....each to their own I guess but only saying......

This reminds me of how everyone in music said that digital was the ultimate in sound when it came out. It was cheap and all you needed was a Digidesign Mbox, a bedroom and a laptop and voila - grammy on the way. Pure, perfect clean sound forever........then they realised that the clean was well ...........rather bland.So they went back into their retro studios to send the audio back through tape machines and valves and all sorts of hardware that added a bit of colour, a crappy kind of sound or the mojo that they now missed. They missed that seventies sound and quotes like' the best sound came from the sixties' etc. Everyone has acces to cheap good clean sound now but why can't we get 'it' anymore. So the old mics started appearing on ebay and people started buying them up for ridiculous prices, so did the tape machines, preamps, the guitar amps,the compressors etc. Then the plugins that emulated the sound got produced but people kept moaning about how they missed something. Close but not close enough. You have to catch the sound when you record it they said - much harder after the fact. In music it is now really close where programs like nebula give the sound of the hardware better than anything else out there. But it has taken years to get here since the promise of audio nirvana was offered.

Perhaps we may see the dof adaptor come back once people see how the extra sharp look may not be the only desirable look. just another view from the bunker......only saying.
 
Last edited:
Henryolonga I was thinking about the same issues you mentioned. I was wondering if people would come up with a way to mimic the grain and blur of a DOF adapter with these new cinema cams...
 
I don't see anything extra sharp about the DSLR's unless people are running their detail levels high. I've tested carefully and its noticeably softer than an EX-1 and a Letus or Blade. Maybe with a weaker camera than an EX though it would be softer. I'm not a fan of low resolution or sharpness created by enhancement.
The grain is missing with the DSLR's and I'm not sure which I prefer frankly.

Lenny Levy
 
Just a thought... but I would start buying some used extra wide lenses now.
I presume that with the 2X crop of the 4/3s sensor factor the used superwide lenses will be much more of a commodity than now. It's not like there are a lot of them around to begin with.

I also use my 35mm primes on my GH1 and my widest 20mm isnt wide enough for my liking.

I agree that the adapter gives more organic look than a DSLR
 
What's more "organic"? Vibrating or rotating adaptor? My gut feeling is it's the vibrating one.
 
Henryolonga, well said, grain and softness mimics a more emotional and deeper looking shot for us as well. DSLR as used by Robert Rodriguez, Ron Howard, or Rick Mc Callum - ( Skywalker) all admit its more for tight shots they can not fit a bigger camera in, or run n gun exteriors - ala music videos, good documentary as well. But using actors and film lighting , compared against a filmic adapter as in our case , the G35 is 35 film or super 16 , the 7d is in need of post tweaking! You can add grain and softness, but i need the high on the set from the image ! Cheers
 
even though i'm gonna get a 7d i have to agree with Henry. The dslrs are jus to clean and plastic for me( but i plan to do stills also ). I LOVE how the blade looks. and maybe some time in the future i will pick up one even if for just nostalgia (cuz i;m keeping my dvx for life) in this extremely fast paced industry....

oh and it will be cheaper then :)

To be honest i can spot dslr footage a mile away..well 7d and 5d anyway. Hopefully when i get mine i people wont be able to tell or care what camera its shot on and just like that it looks good.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top