which is a better, dvx with m2 adapter or hvx200
- Thread starter yia
- Start date
Thomas J. O'Hara
Senior Citizen
HVX all the way
not only is it HD, you get the sweet framerates.
not only is it HD, you get the sweet framerates.
Inoran
Well-known member
dvx with m2 with have a better 'film look' than an hvx. hvx will have a clean HD look with no depth of field. if you plan to get a 35mm adapter for an hvx, it will cost you even more because you need an HD 35mm adapter. from what i hear, using just any old adapter with and HD camera will make things look REALLY grainy.
Nathan.Buxton
Well-known member
i would way rather have an HVX without any adapters than a DVX with an adapter. 35mm adapters are kind of silly to me.
i like how you say theres 'no depth of field' on an HVX? really is that so? so absolutely none of the image is in focus?
i like how you say theres 'no depth of field' on an HVX? really is that so? so absolutely none of the image is in focus?
Barry_Green
Moderator
... you could always add a 35mm adapter to the HVX; a Letus35 Flip is only $700, and the non-flip versions are like $350...
mindzeye
Well-known member
i have to agree with barry, you can always buy an adapter for the HVX later. score the HVX if you're looking to have more creative head room... the HVX has so many features that the DVX just can't compete with... high def... shooting true 16x9... ability to over crank for smooth super slo mo and tapeless recording and capture. just to name a few. hvx hands down!!
jgastelb
Well-known member
Silly as in Teletubbies?
Spongebob?
Different planes of the frame in and out of focus?
Please do elaborate!!!
Last edited:
Nathan.Buxton
Well-known member
The reason i find them silly is that the resolution on a DVXis already quite low. Simply because you can achieve a more shallow depth of field with a 35mm adapter, but at a loss of resolution. Then consider that if you are trying to replicate film, you will want a 16:9 frame at least, if not an even higher contrast ratio. Again, our resolution and overall image quality suffer. Transferring to film from a DVX with a 35mm adapter seems silly to me. I would rather use an HVX, get an over all MUCH nicer image, and call it a day. Nobody is going to pass judgement on your film based on depth of field characteristics... (except for people who own 35mm adapters 
)
[edit] oh and one more note. People keep talking as if the HVX and DVX stock lenses provide only 1 aperture and focal point setting, and that it is one that has a circle of confusion that begins 2 feet from the lens and continues past infinity.
There other things in life than achieving a falsely shallow depth of field.
And by falsely shallow i mean a real-time telecine of another lens system's image.
)[edit] oh and one more note. People keep talking as if the HVX and DVX stock lenses provide only 1 aperture and focal point setting, and that it is one that has a circle of confusion that begins 2 feet from the lens and continues past infinity.
There other things in life than achieving a falsely shallow depth of field.
And by falsely shallow i mean a real-time telecine of another lens system's image.
Last edited:
jgastelb
Well-known member
Transferring to film from a DVX with a 35mm adapter seems silly to me. I would rather use an HVX, get an over all MUCH nicer image, and call it a day. Nobody is going to pass judgement on your film based on depth of field characteristics... (except for people who own 35mm adapters
That is assuming the person who posted this thread will be transferring to film. At that point I may think that it's worth to step up to the plate and just shoot film if your project even has the budget for that. Please look around people in this website and you will note that must are shooting for dvd and web. Very few, to my knowledge, are actually printing to film.
I seriously disagree that only people with 35mm adapters are the only ones noticing. Shallow focus was not invented by the sgpro, m2, brevis or letus guys. They just wanted to have the look of film where not everything is in focus. If you look at most big budget films you will note that very seldom do you have everything in front of you in a deep focus. Again, not invented by the 35mm adapters. You don't have to love these adapters and they're definitely not for everyone but they, IMHO, get you closer to that organic look of film. These debate can go for years, OR, we can just use these tools to make amazing stories that are professional and pleasing to the eye at the same time. Shoot well with what you have regardless. Good luck to you, Nathan!
Peace!
Jgastelb
Nathan.Buxton
Well-known member
Well. I admittedly am being a little too critical. I think they can produce good images... bit there is something that is off..
i dont think you are able to achieve the true FOV with the same DOF as with 35mm film.. maybe im wrong, and it could be just the lenses everybody is using, but the image always seems so "small"... as in a very limited field of view. It reminds me of the look of 16mm film which i think the adapters more accurately "reproduce" the look of. And i don't like 16mm. I dont mind it, but i would way way way WAY rather see something shot with 35.
i dont think you are able to achieve the true FOV with the same DOF as with 35mm film.. maybe im wrong, and it could be just the lenses everybody is using, but the image always seems so "small"... as in a very limited field of view. It reminds me of the look of 16mm film which i think the adapters more accurately "reproduce" the look of. And i don't like 16mm. I dont mind it, but i would way way way WAY rather see something shot with 35.
Lucas Adamson
Well-known member
I think you have a point about angle or field of view. It depends how much of the ground glasss image plane the video lens is viewing. If it is zoomed in to 18x24mm, that's the same as Super35, and so a 50mm stills lens will give the same DOF and FOV results as a 50mm movie lens. The smaller the effective image plane, the narrower the fov, so the lens becomes effectively a longer focal length - you may have seen footage from an adapter zoomed in too far, reducing the FOV.
Your points about 16mm don't make sense, however, because the lenses for 16mm are intrinsicaly shorter in focal length to compensate for the smaller image plane, and so 16mm cameras produce the same range of fov as 35mm cameras. 16mm has greater depth of field than 35mm, but nowhere near as great as 1/3" video chips, so if you don't like 16mm DOF, you should dislike video even more. Hence, 35mm adapters actualy rock!
Nathan.Buxton
Well-known member
heh you have even better points than mine!!
i'm just kind of throwing thoughts out into the wild i guess..
and you're right about the 16mm comment i made. what i dont like about 16mm is how people use it (mimicing depth of field of 35mm) thus making the FOV smaller. 16mm can produce as great of results as 35mm, just with more DOF. But i'm not neccesarily a DOF fanboy as you may have guessed. I just find that it is useful in some situations, but usually (in storytelling, not cinematographer wank sessions) it isn't required to be so exaggerated all the time. I can see the use of a very shallow depth of field, and it IS an effect i would LOVE to have. I simply would much RATHER have 16:9 native image a/r, the ability to overcrank to 60fps, and resolutions that will make my eyes cream their jeans...
[edit] and the p2 workflow
i'm just kind of throwing thoughts out into the wild i guess..
and you're right about the 16mm comment i made. what i dont like about 16mm is how people use it (mimicing depth of field of 35mm) thus making the FOV smaller. 16mm can produce as great of results as 35mm, just with more DOF. But i'm not neccesarily a DOF fanboy as you may have guessed. I just find that it is useful in some situations, but usually (in storytelling, not cinematographer wank sessions) it isn't required to be so exaggerated all the time. I can see the use of a very shallow depth of field, and it IS an effect i would LOVE to have. I simply would much RATHER have 16:9 native image a/r, the ability to overcrank to 60fps, and resolutions that will make my eyes cream their jeans...
[edit] and the p2 workflow
jgastelb
Well-known member
I wish I could see the image wider with or without the adapter. I always feel like I'm too close to everything no matter how far I step back. I was shooting in the outskirts of Seattle today. Big tall trees with the stock lens and the camera could not capture the vast panoramic views at all. It was frustrating. I would have to be on a helicopter way up and behind to see what my eyes were seeing. Oh, well... limitations to everything, right.
BTW -- the way-too-shallow I often hear about is really in regards to wide open lenses while shooting with the adapters because some people don't pump enough light into their scenes. Once you close down to about f2.8 with proper lighting things really look more normal. Never like real 35mm cameras but close enough for some folks.
Jgastelb
BTW -- the way-too-shallow I often hear about is really in regards to wide open lenses while shooting with the adapters because some people don't pump enough light into their scenes. Once you close down to about f2.8 with proper lighting things really look more normal. Never like real 35mm cameras but close enough for some folks.
Jgastelb
The non-flip, which is what I have, is a good way to save money.
But be careful, the manufacture has wisely offered a variety of option so he can meet any price point. I have the tricked out non-flip which is about $500. You can scrimp on the black anodized finish, and metal mounts, but do not scrimp on the advanced achromat (Sp?), especially with the HVX.
But I use the letus35 non flip with the HVX.
Last edited:
Also a well tuned 35adapter, ( any of them really) are practically resolution loss less. especially the latest crop of low cost ones.
Lucas Adamson
Well-known member
heh you have even better points than mine!!
i'm just kind of throwing thoughts out into the wild i guess..
and you're right about the 16mm comment i made. what i dont like about 16mm is how people use it (mimicing depth of field of 35mm) thus making the FOV smaller. 16mm can produce as great of results as 35mm, just with more DOF. But i'm not neccesarily a DOF fanboy as you may have guessed. I just find that it is useful in some situations, but usually (in storytelling, not cinematographer wank sessions) it isn't required to be so exaggerated all the time. I can see the use of a very shallow depth of field, and it IS an effect i would LOVE to have. I simply would much RATHER have 16:9 native image a/r, the ability to overcrank to 60fps, and resolutions that will make my eyes cream their jeans...
[edit] and the p2 workflow
Again you have a good point. In 35mm production, I am told that enormous efforts are made most of the time to increase the depth of field. The short DOF is actualy a big problem in most situations. If videographers want to mimic the look of 35mm, using adapters certainly helps, but if every shot is a focus pull, or focus isolation shot, it can look like what I call wanabee35. Unless you have a big proper crew, which let's face it, most of us don't, storytelling and acting will suffer at the hands of an overkeen cinematographer, for sure.