MPIC 35mm lens adaptor

Hey Dan,
I followed your quest for an P+S alternative/beater on DVinfo, but due to the ongoing flaming discussions I lost interest.
Congrats you finished your work!
I`m not happy about your pricetag, but if your claim to beat the P+S in any way is true, than I can understand your pricing policy.
What I really don`t like is your business site: It`s overcrowded, has a weired layout and structure, spelling mistakes and the quality of the information given is IMHO questionable.
Don`t get me wrong, I´m starting a small production company and really consider buying a 35mm adapter.
And I rather spend 2K and have what I need, than spend 500$ and have to live with compromises (BTW sth an indyfilmaker can live with...)
But claiming to offer professional quality and only having mediocre packshots and hey-thats-my-cat out of focus screenshots doesn't`t sell it for me...
Maybe your DVD offers more insight, but considering your adapters pricetag, you could already offer some H.264 online footage or fullres downloads, with some quality content.
And if, as you stated, the DVD offers "past footage (Felix and friends...)" then I´m not sure if this is what people wanna see, BECAUSE if I spent 2000-3000 USD on an adapter, I want to at least see professional lit scenes and some charts.
And on this forum there probably be a lot of good DPs willing to use the MPIC on a musicvideo or sth else...
Also, less things to click on, with more written information following would improve the impact of your site. I´d rather have only 3 sharp pics, than an armada of badly compressed flash animated bling-bling.
Again, please take this as some critical, yet positive input from a potential costumer.

Regards,

Chris
 
Chris,

Thanks for comment/FB. You are right about the site, I will address those issues as soon as I will get the chance, they are long overdue; I had it looking like ... well a lot worse, till about one month ago (that is for some 9 months). Why? I was more concerned about content than presentation (shape) but you are absolutely right, I should work on some if not all the stills and check them truly, thank you.

I have some hi resolution stills of resolution charts looking better than on "million $ websites", I do not know if you managed to get to them, they are here:

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/ALL-CLIP-TESTS

Felix is an all time favorite, because his fur is a real life resolution chart in motion.

I did not "set up" any professional shoots in an attempt to leave out of discussion one's skills as a DP. Obviously, lights and framing would have been part of the judgment. I want to leave those out because they are SUBJECTIVE. A resolution chart is purely technical. That is ALL one should need to know when it comes to these contraptions. Is the image sharp or no, does it loose light? is there is any diffusion? Once you have these three questions answered, the rest is purely subjective (imo)

What one can do with this contraption is up to individual user and subject to experience in framing and lighting and this is a grey area where one can say : hmm, I like it, or I don't like it, or... he should have frame it.. such and so, or the highlight is too strong or not enough.... you got the picture. That is TASTE. I want to leave it out of the question.
On the same token, if I show you the best I (or someone else) could do using the device I feel I will mislead you into thinking ; hmmm, so If I get that, I’ll do that, which is not true!
To be able to do the same means knowing the same and having the same taste for lights and framing. Subjective buying decision? IMO, YES. Will that influence you to purchase? IMO , YES. Is that fair? IMO no. I would do the same as all TV commercials do. I don’t like doing that.

I want to keep it cool and rationale. Sharp? Diffuse? Light loss? The rest being up to the user.

One more thing: a professional set means ultimately the viewer will judge the overall image which involves: the ability of the camera used to respond to dynamic range of the scene!! which leads to... how many video DP have YOU seen with a light meter in their hands checking the lights on a set to keep ALL lights within dynamic range of the camera while doing an artistic work? How many stops can a DVX100A handle? 5? 6? 4.5? 7?
How many are concerned with highlights clipping or “filling in” to compensate for highlights?
Most people look at a monitor and if they "like" it is good enough. No pun intended, but that's the way video goes and video is a lot more "sensitive" to mistakes than film.

However, I fully understand the need for some nice shoots, possibly something like this?:

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album48/IMGA1748
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album48/IMGA1734
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album48/IMGA1714
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album48/IMGA1669
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album48/IMGA1670

or nicer.
This is an album I added not long ago and (again) shows the kind of images the device can produce. They are all stills from footage:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album46?page=1

I appreciate a lot your FB and comments Chris, thanks for chiming in and I will have a close look at the site.

Dan
 
Dan,
I believe I get your point, but following your arguments you ought to take all non-chart pictures off your site.
Most people interested in buying such an adapter like yours, either own a DV or a HDV camera, so they all know the shortcomings of such highly compressed formats. Controlling dynamic range probably is number one on any DPs to-do list, when shooting with video.
Do you really think people will buy your adapter because you show them stills from unmotivated, random shots?
You don`t wanna show people a well lit, framed, exposed etc shot because it will influence their judgment, don't you think the random, amateurish (sorry...) pics won´t?
Thanks for the charts BTW, I didn´t see them before and guess what: I just found out another click on the image will give me the full-res version, stupid me hahaha...!
But, how many "stupid-me"s will be out there?
Your adapter sounds promising, kick out the stills, post movies made with different cameras and REALLY show people what they get for nevertheless double the price of the G35...
Don`t forget: Only a few of your customers will be electrical/optical engineers...

All the best,

Chris
 
Chris,
All valid points. I can't add anything (as comment), but I can work towards improving the presentation of the products. Thanks a lot for a very fair and unbiased opinion.
Best to you as well,
Dan
 
Hey Dan,

I looked at the images that you referenced, but the one of the res chart (IMGA0517) is kind of invalid as it seems to not be a full frame shot of the chart. Is this perhaps just the center section cropped out of the full frame or was it actually framed as shown?

The difference would be considerable.
 
Valid point. Why so?
Lens used Nikkor 1.4/50. If set at closest focus, the rez chart would have been about 1/4 to 1/3 the frame size. Not good, right?
I had an achromatic from Century (+7) at the time and I set ip up in front of the Nikkor 1.4/50 to be able to get closer and focus on the chart. Focus on in..ty +7, I had to get that close to get a sharp image. Not the best way, but this is how I ended up with that image. However, there are other shoots to support the sharpness idea;
camcorder:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album05/IMGA0475.jpg
vs image converter:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album05/IMGA0470.jpg
same distance, same magnification ratio, same all.

I had another "disturbing" finding but I took the pics off my site. I will have them back if need be.
I took a hi rez pic through a Nikkor 4/200 and then, same field of view, same light... using the camcorder alone. I'll post the pics, they speak better.
Meanwhile have a look at these ones (same idea), and let's skip the discussion about noise; is there in both pictures; camcorder and MPIC+ camcorder:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album05/IMGA0412.jpg
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album05/IMGA0402.jpg

I am not going to go into debates about it anymore. I offered to meet with Vancouver based people have them shoot a test and have them post their results and findings. I have a DVD you can see and decide for yourselves. I have been asked for months now for all sorts of tests (which I performed- not for me, though)

But is nice to see interest, thank you.
Dan
 
Thank you Greg but Felix is priceless. Some day I might share a private "bath" I got: he liked my hand (or maybe I taught him into thinking he's a dog?), so... for the next 15 years he belongs here. Sorry to break your heart.

Why not share a bit more about that footage? "The DVD is awesome" sounds good, but for a lot of people it may not mean much. Let’s keep it simple here; a Yes or No to the following will do (I hope):
Is MPIC capable to produce a sharp picture?
Could it be any sharper?
Did you see a spider web?
Was that a good replacement for a resolution chart?
Did you see better footage first or second hand? (I am not asking in the “artistic” sense, just purely technical)
Do you "feel" there could be any light loss? (first shoot: mounting the camera to see the screen in MPIC)
Did you see any grain? (while the screen was in motion)
Is there any vigneting?

Point out to the frames from footage I have on my site to ref your comments, please. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top