Is this the nail in the coffin for Adaptor rigs?

The 5d let's me shoot in places that would be impossible otherwise while retaining a reasonably sharp image with decent dynamic range.

Considering the price, I think its a god send. The 35adapter is a good bridge, to this current bridge. Which is the precursor to the af100 class of cameras. S35 and 4/3 sized imagers with video ergonomics. I frankly can't wait.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
you can't fix aliasing in post. That's what gives DSLRs their artificial look. real modern film is very, very sharp, that is not the problem. the problem is fake hyper-aliased sharpness.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...you say that but it's not true for everytbody. These conversations are coming off like the "Rolling Shutter" hate discussions a year few years back.....but look at all of the beautiful movies shot on cams with a rolling shutter...lol. So now...here we are talking about those pesky DLRs and how they are evil...not sharp...aliasing....(I can go on and on). Ha ha..I gotta laugh.

But one thing I keep noticing from a lot of folks is the use of the word "sharp." Too much confusion IMO. The proper word should be "detailed." Digital cameras are typically sharper than film where as film is more detailed, better DR etc. The beautiful thing about film is it can be very soft (around the edges) but yet very "detailed" (due to the fact that it resolves a great deal more). THAT (the softer edges) is what most folks try to emulate with their video cameras especially when trying to get that "film-look" (heck...I always thought the HVX's lower resolution gave it an advatage over other video cameras because of this....it hid most in-cam sharpness).

You talk about aliasing being "fake" sharpness... but really...sharpness is sharpness. Yes...we all know the Barry Green article on aliasing...but in most cases it looks good...especially if that is what you are going after. But for the filmic look what I like about the Canons (especially the 7D) is its ability to go really flat by turning in camera sharpness off. When used like that (and coupled with an appropriate lens) I avoid the aliasing issues a great deal. What this does is give me the ability to bring sharpness back up in post WITHOUT the typical halo effect we've seen in traditional camcorders (which are mostly incapable of turning down sharpness as much).
 
Last edited:
I figured you guys might like to see a test I did last night.

[size=+2]Red One and Canon 7D side by side[/size]

just to see how it can intercut. Also used high iso at low light.(single candle)
 
Last edited:
Robert Ruffo said:
On a new edition good adapter with a 1080p cam (like say Ex1 with RR micro M2 encore) you would get much better results than the JVC and I'm not sure what adapter.
Click to expand...

Looks like the old SGpro Rev 2. It has the chrome handle. The Rev 3 is black. Either way..they were both the previous models to the now superior SGBlade. So this test is skewed from the start by equipment that is over 3 years ago. Way before the Letus Ultimate or Extreme was even introduced.
 
smithy said:
Looks like the old SGpro Rev 2. It has the chrome handle. The Rev 3 is black. Either way..they were both the previous models to the now superior SGBlade. So this test is skewed from the start by equipment that is over 3 years ago. Way before the Letus Ultimate or Extreme was even introduced.
Click to expand...

That adapter was made by me.(I made 3)
The point I collated and intentionally used it for comparison was to exaggerate my point when the discussion was about the 7D's "sharpness" and sharpness alone.

The 7D delivers on a lot of other aspects, BUT on the issue of true sensor sharpness, it fails.

AND to prove this we used for comparison cameras that are "supposedly" LOWER in HD specifications.
In the case of the JVC , we have a 720P only camera with 1/3 inch CCD sensor coupled with JUST a "homemade" adapter BUT YET it resolves the charts MUCH better than the 7D.

The Sony, though 1080i has a tiny 1/5 of an inch CMOS sensor compared to the relatively huge 7D CMOS sensor BUT YET resolves the charts much better than the 7D.

Thats what this comparison was about.

Which means, using a more high end camera with a high end adapter would even produce a much better result! But then some would say, "but youre comparing a $XXX,XXX.00 camera with a $XXXX.00 one"...

However, sharpness is not the only thing at play here as to why the 7D shines.
For me, the 7D can rub elbows with another BIG cmos camera. http://exposureroom.com/redand7d/
 
Last edited:
It's kind of hard to compare the red camera with a digital SLR camera. The red has been used extensively in the field by many companies with much success. Granted with the capability of using PL-Cooke/Arri lenses and TOL accessories, it is fantastic. For the 7D with even Zeiss lenses does have limitations. But then again the cost is apples to oranges. I look at using digital cameras with adapters has a certain high threshold in value for return of investment. BUT, if one is to pay around 15grand for a rig and wants that filmlook, I would rather just shoot super-16 film and get all the resolution you can get out of it. Having using the 7D w/adapter does have quick turnaround advantages into post and also lightweight (steadycam). But one must consider how much one is willing to pay for digital. Not to mention, when you shoot digital, your stuck with that medium. And as technology drastically changes yearly, your film may not be able to be seen down the line due to equipment changes. my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top