Where do 35 adaptors stand today?
- Thread starter Amadou
- Start date
Joncarr
Well-known member
A wise man once said, "it belongs in a museum." The closes thing that made it "look" like film was the texture the ground glass made and the feel of 35mm fov. Other then that it was the dumbest and most annoying thing you can put on a camera. The light loss, lens light loss, flip image (old days), light loss of the image flip when they figured it out, soft image, turning your camera into a bazooka. It belongs in a museum, and also the trash.
Grug
Veteran
I'd really love to get a 6x7 ground glass (or better yet a speedbooster type device) that would let me adapt my F5 to capture proper 6x7 medium format imagery. With such a high native sensitivity, the light loss is less of a biggie.
But yeah, they were pretty damn godawful the bazooka days.
But yeah, they were pretty damn godawful the bazooka days.
Joncarr
Well-known member
The texture your thinking about is just the grain on the ground glass that spins giving a film "grain" look. It's based on the how a ground glass of a film camera works, that you use the ground glass to adjust the optical view finder to your eye. Where with 35mm adapter. Your adjusting the zoom and focus to the grain on the ground glass. Then you turn it on and start shooting. What gives the movie look is the camera producing the same dynamic range, color, fov, resolution of s35 film.
David W. Jones
Veteran
That is exactly what I called it back then… A Bazooka!
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
No. With the 'ground glass' giving the texture, the 'texture' is static... Film film grain was due to differing, random placement of the silver crystals in the film medium, and that changed with each frame.
You can simulate the 'fixed' texture by using a filter in After Effects, and it becomes immediately 'obvious' as not Film film... in order to simulate grain in AE one needs to use the more 'dynamic' grain filters that change the filter characteristics on each frame, so as to not have that fixed pattern look.
When I first tuned into DVXUSER and with my then new DVX100A I thought I was 'missing' the boat by not having the 35mm adapter... then on contemplation and seeing some people's efforts... I decided to 'love' what the DVX100 could give me, without recourse to such adapters...
Since going with the GH-1 and in general looking to DSLRs for my Digital film needs, I've not given such adapters a second thought...
As it is, I'm not even really interested in the so called 'speed boosters' either... I'll just spend the money and get a 'fast' lens when needed... as it is I have a nearly 50 year old Nikon 28mm/F-2.0 lens for those rare occasions where I may need a fast lens, and is nearly a 'normal' lens on my GH-1... and it gives me a 'creamy'(I hate that designation...) look due to the lack of coatings and perhaps even 'age' related effects...
combatentropy
Veteran
I don't understand this question.
A 35mm adapter does the same thing today as it did then: reduce depth of field. So just because it's not popular anymore doesn't mean it somehow doesn't work anymore. Most tellingly, the reason a 35mm adapter has fallen out of popularity is because its effect (shallow depth of field) is easier to get, because cameras nowadays have bigger chips. And people are buying those up like crazy.
I just don't understand this question.
drapeama
Well-known member
1) With a spinning adapter, you'll automatically get that "grain" as the gound glass is not static. Better results than a static one. Owned both a static (called Twoneil at the time) and bough a DIY one from a fellow user on another forum.
Here's one video I made with it:
As for the grain, the best method I found (except maybe for FilmConvert) is to add a Solid Layer (color GREY) in After Effects and then apply the "FastFilmGrain" preset from [video]http://www.videocopilot.net/preset/fast_film_grain/[/video]. Then set the layer to Overlay and you're done. I tried a couple "version" and the 4K layer down-sized to 1080p gave the best results, close to a 35mm movie on BluRay (with a good transfer). Here's a quick video:
Reminds me the very first short film I've done (mostly all of it) using that adapter. It was for a contest and the theme was to create a "Film Trailer". Nothing exceptional, but I liked the look:
To end, I think it's just a tool, and every tool as it's use. So yes, you can find a place in cinematography for 35mm adapter, if you want to.
simonpwood
Well-known member
As a creative or artistic choice? Sure, why not.
These guys did it (they built their own adapter), and the movie did really well. It actually won some cinematography awards, based partly on the distinctive look of the film:
http://coatwolf.com/bellflower.php
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellflower_(film)
These guys did it (they built their own adapter), and the movie did really well. It actually won some cinematography awards, based partly on the distinctive look of the film:
http://coatwolf.com/bellflower.php
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellflower_(film)
Michael Carter
Veteran
The "speed" increase of speedboosters are a side effect of their intended design - getting a wider image circle onto a small sensor. Basically to allow wider lenses on small sensor cameras. Refocusing all those photos into a smaller space makes the image brighter.
People generally don't buy them for the additional sensitivity. Buying a quality wide lens for, say, a GH4 or a BMD Pocket camera is very expensive, introduces distortion to shots that shouldn't look wide, etc. Speedboosters let you use your existing glass on smaller sensors.
As far as the OP's question - adapters allowed "video" cameras to look a little more "cinematic". These days, it's much easier to get that look from a DSLR, and cheaper in many cases as well (since you need fast glass, generally SLR or MF lenses, for the adapters too). There's really no reason today to rely on your "video" cameras (that excel for events, run & gun, etc) and a bolted-on motorized mess of stuff to get a different look. But like anything in this biz, if a DP can get the look he wants from such a rig, good on 'em. To each their own.
Amadou
Carbonite Member
J1clark, What are you talking about? In a vibrating ground glass such as the Letus Extreme adaptor the texture changes with each frame. That's what gives it the "non-video" look. In fact, if you have neverwrkd with an Adaptor yu are probably out oftouch with the adaptor look. This thread is for those who have worked with adaptors such as the high end spinning or vibratig adaptors.
David W. Jones
Veteran
I have a Cinevate Brevis DOF adapter I would be glad to sell you!
David W. Jones
Veteran
Are you honestly using "High End" and "DOF Adapter" in the same sentence?
Hell, I can remember renting a P+S Technic Mini 35 and a set of Super Speed lenses for a national spot we shot back when everybody was shooting Beta SP. So what!
Hell, I can remember renting a P+S Technic Mini 35 and a set of Super Speed lenses for a national spot we shot back when everybody was shooting Beta SP. So what!
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Your initial post and my brief review of subsequent posts did not indicate what type or 'quality' of device. I was posting from my recall of what people were producing when I first bought my DVX100A, and from my view, their results never really impressed me enough to spend the money for such a device. I did experiment at the time with After Effects and various 'grain' filters, etc. but decided that attempting to emulate this type of artifact of Film film was not worth it.
As for 'artistic' choices... sure... anything goes.
But for me none of the clips that I have seen that have been presented to 'promote' the use of a 35mm to SD camera adapter has impressed me enough that by that fact alone the clip is 'more filmic'.
For me 'filmic' centers on lighting, choice of framing, set design/dressing (even if minimal...), and a number of other things that have little to do with the camera and optics.
For every example of 'shallow DoF', and 'grain look', I can find examples of classic films that have deep DoF, and as 'little grain' as possible with the Film stock of the era in which the film was made.
When the Wife was a student at UCSD I was her note taker for some of her classes. We suffered through a number of presentations by students who would present their crappy films and justify the crappiness as 'art choice'...
For me, the 35mm adapter examples that most people presented way back when, to me, were just crapping up the image so one did not notice that the underlying camera was limited. To be sure there were some who finessed the equipment to a 'good looking image'... but then I could also point to those other attributes that I mentioned above as required for 'filmic' quality as the reason why those few 'standout' from the rest.
Now, I will say there is a use for such 'crapping' up of Digital film, which 'softens' jaggies which are a result of the raster sensors.
But I will also say, that that process is best done in post and 'tweaked' rather than being burnt in because of the equipment used to capture the image.