M2 vs. HVX lens comparison

Seamus McFlannel

Seamus McFlannel

Well-known member
Here are a quick couple of shots back to back comparing the M2 to the HVX lens
I did this really quickly this morning, no AC and no subject, just myself.
I pre- focused as best I could, then ran into the shot.

The HVX lens is definitely crisper, but I don't think it as dramatic. I also had to back the camera up quite a bit to be able to get the subject the same size. I also plan on shooting some comparison test with more time to tweak.

But, in my opinion, the M2 has it's place. The lens used was a Nikon 50mm f1.4.

Seamus+

http://www.stoneroadpictures.com/movieclips/m2test.mov
 
Which shot was which? I loaded them onto my MAC with no trouble. Both look ok, I think the second one is sharper. Again, which shot is which?
 
You might need to upgrade your Quicktime if you're getting a white screen. It is the H264 compression which is for HD.

The first shot is the M2 shot and the second one is with the HVX lens which is sharper.
But as I stated in my first post, I had to pre-focus the M2 and then run into the shot. I don't think that I sat down in the exact plane of focus. I didn't have a lot of time to mess with it. I do think that the HVX lens will always look sharper, but I'm going to conduct some experiments to make the M2 look closer in sharpness to the HVX.

I think that the M2 does add a dimension to the HVX, but I also think that it will have to be carefully planned and judiciously used. By the way, I love the HVX lens. I think Panasonic has put a great lens on this camera.

I hope to posts some new tests some time tomorrow. I'll probably put both a small and large file up for people who can't open the H264 one.

Seamus+
 
it seems like this lens on the HVX does a lot of what us DOF freaks are looking for. i must say i like the M2 ALOT, but it looks fairly similar to the "device" we made for our camera for our first feature. we got some great results with that little thing, but honestly, i'm weary of ever shooting with one again until i'm certain the setup times are far less stressful. setting a GG lens adapter takes a TON of precise movements and tweaks to get a usable image. once you get it the results can be great. the unfortunate reality is that it is hard to get those results consistently.

"judiciously" i think is the PERFECT way to put it Seamus. i have a feeling i'll grab an M2 just to have it in my "toolkit", but i think it would be a bad idea for anyone to try to use it exclusively. especially with how bob gundu has shown truly how amazing that lens is. if you guys haven't seen his stuff yet on this board you must. it's easily the most impressive HVX i've seen yet. DOF is obviously there, in full force!

-kd
 
I can read most H.264 files, but I got the white screen as well... I'm on PC.
 
The footage is in DVCPRO HD, not H.264 (look at the movie info in your QuickTime player).

PC users can't view DVCPRO HD footage without Raylight or one of the editing software packages that no one uses.
 
I liked the clip and although you lose a bit of sharpness, I liked the M2 shot way better. It really looks more like film as opposite to a few other clips I've watched on this forum that have that "soap-opera look".

Thanks for posting it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the conversion - it looks great!

I agree with the last poster that the M2 footage just looks more filmic than these cameras do with the stock lenses. They have a sharpness to them that just calls out "video" - though it's amazing that a $500 adapter can "transform" the image so much.

Obviously this was a situation where the shooter had enough room to go way back and zoom all the way in so he could achieve pretty shallow DOF even with the stock HVX lens. I'd love to see more comparisons by this user, however, indoors or in situations where that's not possible. The results of getting a shallow DOF seem to be insanely easier with the M2 in those kinds of shots - and that's important to a lot of us.

I'd love to hear your opinions on the adapter in general, too - how much light did you lose by using it? How long does it take you to set it up? Does it require a lot of calibration each time, or just the first time, or do you just snap it on and go? It really looks like this is the way to go if you are intending to shoot with this camera... redrock's sales must be booming.
 
Haakon-
I got the adapter on Friday and have been testing it over the weekend. I am very happy. I used an 85mm Nikkor and the gearless follow focus from the banner ads on this site. It looked great. Set up was simple once I got the hang of it. I did it all without instructions at first because they seem a bit secretive with the tutorials for what ever reason over at RedRock.

Two things that effect the rig once it's set up and the back focus is set are-
Accidently bumping the zoom on the camera and accidently bumping the focus on the camera. I guess using grip tape to lock off the two would be smart. I have to admit I accidently reached for the wrong focus ring a few times out of habit. Ooops.

I got a little shake during my rack focus tests due to the crap head and tripod I have. The rig is pretty heavy with rails, plate, lens, followfocus all attached. I didn't even have a Matte Box on the rig. So you need a beefy head at the very least. Dagnabit more money to spend.

I was shocked by the sharpness. I compared raw to M2 footage and there is a very slight softning that is not noticed unless you put them side to side. IMHO the softness added just the right look to make the footage look less video edgy and more organic. There is a slight edge softness I found in the footage testing but I think it has more to do with the set-up than the adapter. I wish there was a more percise way to adjust the attitude and yaw of the camera lens in relation to the ground glass. Admittedly i was too excited to start trying out the lens to futz with it too much.

I didn't notice a great loss of light with a 1.8 lens.

Shallow Depth of field... gives me wood. When I calculate the savings I got from not renting the Mini-35 for three weeks--- Well time to get a tissue.
 
holditnowfilms said:
Haakon-
I got the adapter on Friday and have been testing it over the weekend. I am very happy.
Click to expand...
That's awesome to hear. For some reason it seems like Texas is the hotbed of M2 users. Can I ask how long it took you to get it? I just bit the bullet and ordered mine a few days ago. I've got a fairly lengthy shoot planned for the first week of May, so I'm really crossing my fingers it'll get here. Though I'm not completely f'ed if I don't get it in time, I do think it's gonna make the footage look much, much nicer if I can.

holditnowfilms said:
I used an 85mm Nikkor and the gearless follow focus from the banner ads on this site. It looked great.
Click to expand...
I'm already scrounging eBay for the best deals on lenses I can get! Glad to hear you went with the Nikon mount (and had good success) as that's the mount I chose as well. I actually have a couple Canon EOS lenses already, but the aperture is only controllable from a Canon camera body and that's just not gonna fly. So I went the Nikon route. Seems like you can get a good set of manual primes for fairly cheap online, so that's a plus.

holditnowfilms said:
Set up was simple once I got the hang of it. I did it all without instructions at first because they seem a bit secretive with the tutorials for what ever reason over at RedRock.
Click to expand...
Yeah, kinda strange. I'm still waiting to get "activated" over there myself. It does seem pretty straightforward, I'm just anxious to get it as soon as possible so I have enough time to test it before we shoot.

holditnowfilms said:
Two things that effect the rig once it's set up and the back focus is set are-
Accidently bumping the zoom on the camera and accidently bumping the focus on the camera. I guess using grip tape to lock off the two would be smart. I have to admit I accidently reached for the wrong focus ring a few times out of habit. Ooops.
Click to expand...
Though I've never personally used a 35mm adapter, I understand the principal and that was something I had already thought about. I'm sure I'll make the same mistakes a few times as well - but to tell you the truth, I'm really happy to be getting back to working with a real manual lens again. I miss that familiar "snap" of the iris with all of these video cameras.

holditnowfilms said:
I got a little shake during my rack focus tests due to the crap head and tripod I have. The rig is pretty heavy with rails, plate, lens, followfocus all attached. I didn't even have a Matte Box on the rig. So you need a beefy head at the very least. Dagnabit more money to spend.
Click to expand...
I have been using my camera (HVX) with a Chrosziel mattebox and rail system already and haven't had any issues, so I'm hoping the M2 won't put too much extra strain on it. It sure extends the lens quite a bit, though. I do a lot of Steadicam work as well, so I'm also concerned about the weight and balance with the rig. Hopefully it'll all work out okay.

holditnowfilms said:
I was shocked by the sharpness. I compared raw to M2 footage and there is a very slight softning that is not noticed unless you put them side to side. IMHO the softness added just the right look to make the footage look less video edgy and more organic.
Click to expand...
I've noticed that on the sample footage I've seen from users as well and I absolutely love it. It really gives the picture a filmlike quality that can't seem to be replicated in any other way. My biggest concern is having enough light to use it properly - I've seen a lot of dark test footage shot with the M2 - as well as being able to get a somewhat deeper depth of field for the times I actually do need it (mostly for Steadicam work).

holditnowfilms said:
I didn't notice a great loss of light with a 1.8 lens.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to get ~1.8 glass when possible, but some of those lenses can get really expensive. 50mm won't be a problem, but some of the other variants don't even get that fast to begin with. I think I'm going to round out my initial kit with a 2.8 28mm and a 2.0 85mm. What do you set your camera's iris to? Does it need to remain constant, or can you use that to vary the light levels as well? I've been trying to figure out how to rate the entire "system" given that you've got two independent iris controls to deal with.

holditnowfilms said:
Shallow Depth of field... gives me wood. When I calculate the savings I got from not renting the Mini-35 for three weeks--- Well time to get a tissue.
Click to expand...
Lol, I'd be lying if I said it was any different for me. I haven't been this excited to get shooting a project of my own in a long time. Renting expensive stuff is fun when it's on someone else's dime, but getting to make these kinds of images anytime I want to is fantastic. Now I just have to find a camera that will do the thing justice...

P.S. - Do you have any test stuff to share? The footage here has been pretty limited. I'd especially love to see some interior samples showing off that great DOF in areas where you just can't do it with the DVX/HVX alone - and perhaps some footage withOUT the adapter as well for comparison. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I will try and get some tests online. We are swamped with other pre-production issues so it may be a while.

KEH online has some good lens deals. I bit the bullet and went or 105mm 1.8 and a 35-105 2.8-4 zoom and a 50mm 1.8 the 1.4 85mm was 1100 bucks new. I figured brighter lights would be cheaper in I went with the 1.8 as the cost dropped 500 bucks 4 sames lens.

I plan to use the stock lens for anything below 50mm and steadycam. I am pretty confident as long as I don't cut directly between the two it won't be an issue. In fact I am pretty confident you could cut between the stock lens at it's widest and the M2 and get away with it. If not a promist would do wonders to match them up. More testing for that. I noticed I need more sharpness on the wide end of the stock lens anyway so the Leica could add the sharpness I need. Plus if I am going handlheld or steady cam I think all the motion is going to take away from any noticable sharpness increase or loss. For close ups and interiors I figure the actors will appreciate the softness particularly the females.

At the end of the day it's my film so any anomalies are going to be considered the "Hold it Now Fillms Look" and talked about as a matter of style. IT's art baby!

I got my M2 is just under two weeks.



You can adjust either the SLR or the HVX or both F-stops to control lighing. I tested wide open interior and stoped down the SLR for exterior.
 
While I know not many people here are thinking about film-outs I just wanted to put my concerns here.

The m2 makes a great image but it does soften it up. There is no way to know if that softening will stand up to a film out to 35mm on a big screen unless someone tests it - that would be a great test to perform
 
How long does the M2 take to set up in comparison to setting up a shot without it with the stock lens?
 
there is not a simple answer - depends how good you are with it, how critical focus is (covering lots of action or a single item), will you be follow focusing.

Once the adapter is configured, setup and tested which takes days to weeks depending on yuor commitment, you just put the lens on focus and go. Until you release that with shallow DOF you need to follow focus. Or that your minimal focus length of the sub-100 dollar lens is too short for that macro shot etc etc.

It introduces a lot of power and therefore a lot of variables into your process and therefore more time
 
Maybe I am doing something wrong but it taking days to weeks to configure seem loco to me. I had it up and working in focus in less than 1 hour without instructions. Stuff was sharp. A slight edge softness was noticed but I didn't try to fix it as I was having too much fun testing all the shallow focus properties of my 85mm lens. Pulling focus etc.

I don't see the adapter itself being an issue as far as time for set up. Now that I have my adapter on the rails and having set it up once I think set up is not really an issue. You will however spend more time deciding on lens choices and planing shots. Getting actors to hit their marks and being anal about focus. When you have 4 inches of in focus area screwing up is going to be very easy. But that will happen on all lens adapters.

I will add this. The M2 is very logical in it's design and use. It's not a black box. If you have half a brain you will figure out how to get the best out of it. You got two major parts. The ground glass and the diopter from your camera to the glass.

The distance from your camera to the ground glass sets the back focus. You have to be back far enough for the camera to be able to focus. You zoom the HVX in to fill the frame. You then focus the HVX on that. That's it really. As you may or may not know, the more you zoom the less close you can be to an object and still focus on it. So you have to juggle the ability to zoom in far enough to get the image full frame and being far enough back from the GG to snap focus on it. You can only move the adapter about a quarter inch so it's not rocket science to get the two in line.

Now watch the next time I test nothing is going to work! :)
 
smelni said:
While I know not many people here are thinking about film-outs I just wanted to put my concerns here.

The m2 makes a great image but it does soften it up. There is no way to know if that softening will stand up to a film out to 35mm on a big screen unless someone tests it - that would be a great test to perform
Click to expand...

I will take a little softness over everything being in focus any day. I hate that look it drives me crazy and looks home video to me. Being Razor sharp isn't that big a deal IMO I think it's over rated and thus Promist filters were invented. It's all about compromise at this end of the game.

Last time I was at the cinema the old assed print I was seeing had so much dirt and crap on the two week old print I was shocked. But guess what? Not one person mentioned it or complained.

I'll gladly take the softness hit should the stars align and I get a film print struck. I will be lucky to get a Digital Theatrical via Landmark, Angelica or Magnolia anyway.

There is an issue but is it a deal breaker? Like I said before call it a style and put a disclaimer on the print like they did my copy of the THREE KINGS DVD- The look of this film was altered by the producers to achieve a style for telling the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top