New 35 PICS

You posted saying thats what happends when you slap a 35mm on a camera, and not with the canon EF adapter on an Xl2, I also said it is different with an Xl2. Im talking just shoving a 35mm lense on a DVX since your doubling the lense.
 
myfriendimage said:
Im talking just shoving a 35mm lense on a DVX since your doubling the lense.
Click to expand...

And who is doing that? Nobody on this thread or any other thread discussing 35mm adapters/imagers. The 35mm lens image is projected onto an intermediate screen and *then* sent to the digital camcorders lens. So what a 35mm camera would see, you're seeing. Hopefully this is clear now.
 
twocik23 said:
As far as grain, light loss, clarity and sharpness. I not having any problems with it, but I would like to try the beattie screen. Do you have a link? Thanks for the info
Click to expand...

I think your adapter is very nice but it could really benefit from the beattie screen (or even microwax) to obtain a sharper image.
 
I have been looking into it and I think the GG that I'm using works very well. Now to achieve a sharper image. Mostly depends on the way the GG is calibrated to the lens. Now with any of these adapters, If you have poor lighting you're going to see more grain. But with the right lighting, the less grain. Now if we were talking about me actually hand grinding these myself (GG), then yes I would probably switch. Now the GG that I'm using is a manufactured piece, so there aren't any flaws. Also don't forget that my test footage and test screen grabs are all shot in natural light, No reflectors or key lights. Just what the day and night had to offer.
 
holyzoo said:
And who is doing that? Nobody on this thread or any other thread discussing 35mm adapters/imagers. The 35mm lens image is projected onto an intermediate screen and *then* sent to the digital camcorders lens. So what a 35mm camera would see, you're seeing. Hopefully this is clear now.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, thats just what a friends proffessor told me guess I got things messed up.
 
twocik23 said:
Now the GG that I'm using is a manufactured piece, so there aren't any flaws.
Click to expand...

Many people at Alt imaging on DVinfo had beat their brains over getting GGs with fine enough grain not to notice. Even Cinemek after many thousands of dollars of R&D eventually migrated to a moving element because of the limitations of a static design. I know Cinemek surely found something damn close to perfect. It seems to be that you're not wanting to disclose what GG you're actually using. Which leads to my next comment about potential commercial endeavors.

twocik23 said:
Also don't forget that my test footage and test screen grabs are all shot in natural light, No reflectors or key lights. Just what the day and night had to offer.
Click to expand...

Most of my footage had been shot in the same conditions as you describe. I think it's cool that you got it all to work. I'd just be careful of claiming to have no static grain artifacts *if* you are planning on selling this to anyone else. Disclosure is the best policy. However, if you have no intentions of selling this to anyone else, it's all about whatever you're personally satisfied with.

Case in point - http://indie35.com/

See how these guys deflect all questions about static grain. I wonder how many customers are super bummed out when they see how much grain their hard earned footage is marred by.

Hyper critical? You bet. Most people are, so just wanting to "keep it real" here. ;)
 
Last edited:
Honesty goes a long way. Two recent examples that really impressed me recently were Jonathan Houser (cinemek/G35) and Bklyndv (Go35). It's been a long time I've been waiting for the G35 and I had this project that really didn't allow me to wait anymore. I talked to Jonathan about cutting a deal and he was so commited to his product being perfect that he, not only told me it was not ready to be sold yet (it'll be when it's PERFECT), but also told me to go ahead and buy another adapter for the time being. This is amazing. I'm sure somebody else would just sell the adapter and make a couple of more bucks. Something similar happened when I turned to Bklyndv for a backup plan...as soon as I told him I need the adapter for the FX1 he told me I should go with another adapter until his GO35HD is ready. He could just as well have sold me a bad prototype. I just have to say THAT'S how you do bussiness. I have the at most respect for these guys and I wish more people would follow their example IF they plan to sell their product.
 
Look guys I'm not here trying to make a quick buck. I take everything you guys say into consideration and I thank you for your concerns and ideas. I was just trying to make something for us indie filmmakers to shoot exceptional footage without having to spend 15,000 dollars. In the next couple of weeks I'm going to test all kinds of new ideas. If you guys think of any improvements we could make, just let me know.
 
Sorry if you thought I was implying that you are just trying to make a quick buck. That was not my intention at all. I totaly support what you are doing and I really hope it gets better and better. I was just giving some examples of people who want their products to be nothing but the best before they start selling them. But there's also a lot of people who preffer to put their product on the market when it's "good enough" and evolve from that moment on with the input from the people who bought their product. I think the main problem is also that after seeing footage from adapters like the G35 and Redrock people have set standards...but you can't really compare a 1300$ adapter to a 300$ one....hum, then again, I preffer the images of the G35 than the ones from much more expensive adapters...Ah, forget it, maybe I making things worst...it's just too early in the morning for me. Lets jus stay with "I support you and hope your footage gets sharper and sharper"
 
You also have to remember that all of my tests were shot with the settings to default. You can however bring the sharpness up through the camera. So if you require a really sharp look, it can be done through the cameras settings and in post. So to compare a adapter by its price is not the way to look at it, you want to compare it's results and tests. But thank you for your input.
 
Last edited:
Here's a low light clip as requested

This was shot with the ifocus 35mm adapter and a konica 50mm f1.4 lens. With only a 22watt light (i know, not that much light at all), also without ANY COLOR CORRECTION AND THE CAMERA ON DEFAULT SETTINGS. So this was a test with f1.4 lens, and really low watt light, and footage without CC. Now just think if it was shot with a 50mm f1.2, and a nice set of lights and if it was color corrected, then you're in business.



(35mm low light room test)

http://homepage.mac.com/twocik23/FileSharing26.html
 
very cool! I can't wait to get my..... wait a minute, what exactly are you calling your 35mm adapter? The iFocus 35? Anyway... I can't wait to get my [insert name here]! :-)

I hope the Canon 50mm 1.4 lens yeilds as good of results as the Konica.
 
This footage was by far the best you posted (specialy if it is non CC like you said). Oh yeah, what' your adapters' name? Is it "your35"? Have you ever tried it with HD to see the results? It would be nice to see some footage if you.
 
YES, It's called the ifocus 35mm adapter and there's NO COLOR CORRECTION. I don't have any footage of the adapter attached to a HD camera, but I guessing that it would look really nice.
 
Also guys if you're double clicking the itunes screen to maximize the footage. You loose almost half of the resolution, do to stretching the pixels. If you know this already disregard this message.
 
MAN! never thought I could do it.
The most challenging part is the GG and keeping everything clean. I'm still waiting on my FD mount (last part) I went with the Canon lens
This has been the best design so far, tight, compact, sleek.
Way to go twocik23.
 
twocik23 said:
YES, It's called the ifocus 35mm adapter and there's NO COLOR CORRECTION. I don't have any footage of the adapter attached to a HD camera, but I guessing that it would look really nice.
Click to expand...
...attached to a HD camera...

How? Via step ring?

To any sort of HD cameras? Also to 1/2" chip ones like Sony XDCAM-HD series? 2/3" too? Or just 1/3" CCD camcorders?
 
I hate to differ with you on that statement. The DOF is exactly the same, since you're filming the groundglass. The image created on the ground glass is the same as if the camera lens was your film plane. The only difference is that in most cases you're using the lens wide open and that will create less DOF, but the same as if you were shooting with film. I have gone one step further with my adapter Ia am not using 35mm lenses. I'm using medium format lenses, so far I have tested my unit with 45 to 300mm focal length without any problem. Will be posting some pix real soon.
 
I ahave noticed that the grain is seen when the lens is closed down, and when you do that it also creates vignetting. I have not noticed grain on my adapter when the lens is wide open. The trick is on the quality of the groundglass, people talk about grinding their own, can they really do a better job than Beattie? I have no light loss that I have been able to notice. I like to ask one question.. when you look into a Hasselblad camera can you see grain on the groundglass ? No.. you don't... When you look through an old Graflex 4x5 camera with an old standard groundglass do you see grain? YES you do.. So the quality of the groundglass is super important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top