DELTA_Rotary
Active member
Are there any workshops or seminars out there that help with getting the most out of the 35mm adapters?
Workshops / Seminars?
- Thread starter DELTA_Rotary
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Should that be added to an HVX BootCamp? We're doing the next one March 29th in NYC (soft announcement, formal announcement will come later) but that's a segment we could add if people really want it.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
I've been asking for a sticky about :
1- back focus issues - both back focus of the 35mm lens and the video cameras back focus on the GG
2. Exposure oddities and how it relates to how much light loss to expect
3. DOF oddities
4. One could throw in how to know if you're at Acadamy or SLR and other issues as well.
The same issues come up again and again and its extremely tiresome.
I think that could help with a lot of questions that make people feel the need for a seminar .
So far my request has fallen flat - perhaps because I am a mad dog proponent of phenomena that all wiser heads know are optically impossible.
Speaking of which - did the tests I posted lay to rest whether or not a Brevis can get the same exposure at f2.8 and f1.4 and whether it is possible to get different DOF on different adapters despite the same 35mm lens at the same f stop?
Lenny Levy
1- back focus issues - both back focus of the 35mm lens and the video cameras back focus on the GG
2. Exposure oddities and how it relates to how much light loss to expect
3. DOF oddities
4. One could throw in how to know if you're at Acadamy or SLR and other issues as well.
The same issues come up again and again and its extremely tiresome.
I think that could help with a lot of questions that make people feel the need for a seminar .
So far my request has fallen flat - perhaps because I am a mad dog proponent of phenomena that all wiser heads know are optically impossible.
Speaking of which - did the tests I posted lay to rest whether or not a Brevis can get the same exposure at f2.8 and f1.4 and whether it is possible to get different DOF on different adapters despite the same 35mm lens at the same f stop?
Lenny Levy
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Timur's the mod over 35mm adapters, you should direct your request to him. He'd be making the stickies and organizing the info that goes into them.
As for "optically impossible," the claims turned out indeed to be optically impossible for a unit that would have been attempting to capture the frame and emulate the DOF of 35mm. The problem was in understanding that the Brevis wasn't trying to do what we thought it was. The lack of changes in DOF and lack of exposure changes from 1.4 to 2.8 all point to that. The notion that the Brevis doesn't respond to iris changes linearly at all, down to around f/8 or f/11, point to that. It "games the system" by doing things that we didn't expect, that shouldn't work, and -- by strict interpretation of what an adapter "should" be doing, don't work. However, that's not what you (and many happy/satisfied Brevis customers) want. So Dennis has found a way to give you something else, and you are happy with it. He's sort of invented the "pixel shift" of adapters. So it does what it does, but it doesn't do what I and others were expecting. So it was a case of someone speaking German to someone who only speaks French.
Put simply: if someone wanted 35mm film-style DOF and linear response (1 stop = 1 stop) and predictable DOF control from their lens, (and I'm talking about someone who knows what a DOF chart is and would use it), then that type of shooter wouldn't want to use a Brevis with CF1 -- it doesn't deliver that. If someone doesn't care about measurable results and predictable performance and instead just wants "shallower DOF than they would otherwise get," the Brevis does that just fine. And there are side benefits, as Dennis points out, such as being able to use slower (and less expensive) lenses without a penalty in light performance. It's all about what you expect to get out of the tool. People who want to buy cheap lenses and get ultimate light efficiency and are not put off by the side effects will be well served, and there are lots and lots of those customers. People who are used to how lenses respond and know what type of DOF they want to achieve would probably be driven to distraction by the way the CF1L just doesn't give them that.
There are side effects and there are tradeoffs. We've now been able to identify what those are. You cannot have a unit that behaves as the Brevis does, that simultaneously delivers 35mm lens performance (in light response and DOF control). That is, indeed, "optically impossible." What you can have is a "DOF adapter" that delivers shallow DOF and behaves the way the Brevis does. Those are not the same thing.
Last edited:
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Barry,
I have to say that your post saddens me a great deal. Why you see the need to personally attack a perfectly good piece of equipment from a reputable and hard working manufacturer who brings his time and expertise to these pages is utterly beyond me. Have you ever actually tested a Brevis?
Let me repeat that I own an SGpro, a Brevis and a Letus Extreme and find pros and cons in all of them. I've found myself often defending the Brevis on these pages only because of inaccurate attacks like this one.
Some of the mistatements of fact in your comments are as follows:
1. First you have twice now misstated the Brevis DOF issue, even though I corrected you last time.
The Brevis CF1L has "MORE" DOF than a Letus or an SGPro not less. Moreover if you compare the DOF of a Redrock, an SGOPro, and Letus they will all be different. Don't say that's impossible - its a fact and any number of people here could tell you the Redrock for example has less apparent DOF. In general - more diffusive GG - less apparent DOF.
So - which one is the "Real 35mm adapter"? - or is it the mini 35 which I'll bet has less DOF than the Letus.
I doubt whether you or anyone else here could say with reliability which of these is closest to the DOF of true 35mm - and by the way is that Academy or super 35? Again, if I had to bet I would guess its the Brevis because it doesn't add additional diffusion due to the GG. It should be closer to the expected optical DOF of film.
I think it would be great for someone to compare DOF on these adapters with that in a chart. I haven't seen it. Have you?
2. The Brevis is just as capable of giving you Academy as any other adapter and like most of the others - (including Redrock & Letus if it was centered) it gives you full frame as well. They sell PL adapters. So that's a complete non issue. I don't know where you got this idea.
But I take issue with the implication from you that there is something wrong with people who wish to use the full SLR framing. I believe the credentials of the DP's who are willing to use SLR framing here are at least equal to those to whom its anathema. So can we please discuss it as an aesthetic choice instead of some god-given principle upon which 35mm adapters were created.
3.
What the...? I own only the fastest Nikon Primes and the excellent Nikon 2.8 80-200. Plenty of other people here using Brevis have invested in good glass. Are you really implying that this tool is only for people who buy cheap glass? Have you seen Marco's feature work and those of other people who've used a Brevis here?
The speed advantage is there for anyone who wants to use a zoom lens, or who would rather shoot with their 35mm lenses at 2 or 2.8. Or save on f1.4 lenses. That's perfectly reasonable Barry.
4.
I don't think either the Letus or SG has 1:1 response below f2.8. As I recall you observed that yourself. They are not as extreme as the Brevis but elicit some of the same behavior, because it is in the nature of the optical behavior of adapters.
5.
Huh...? Dennis designed a screen for minimal loss of light - for those who wanted it. Period - that's all he did. Everything else that seems odd is due to the optics of adapter mechanics and it surprised all of us because we were used to the different optics of film.
What is all this invective here for? Its a tool. You should be thanking him. Let's understand it and see what its real trade offs are. In fact it's especially interesting because it points up how much we have to learn about these contraptions.
6.
What trade offs exactly have you identified? The DOF analogy was completely upside down and you haven't identified that any other adapters would match a DOF chart or true 35mm DOF. The academy vs. 35mm framing issue was a non-starter altogether. Few of them have 1:1 response, but I imagine if that seriously upsets one it could be a downside. Personally I think it would be very easy to work around.
Last month all kinds of people here were announcing that there had to be some kind problem with the Brevis pictures- they must vignette, or they can't handle highlights, etc - but neither you nor anyone else has found anything of significance yet.
6. What I read in your remarks is an appalling lack of curiosity as to how adapters actually behave. What affects their DOF characteristics, What affects their linearity, what are the pros and cons of academy vs. SLR framing and DOF, how to use a DOF chart with any of them, why would the Brevis CF1L act as it does and what are the REAL TRADE OFFS between any of these.
Instead you seem to be measuring them against some imaginary standard that perfectly emulates a 35mm film camera. But at the very best these are not anything like 35mm film cameras. They've got entirely different issues, optics and tradeoffs.
They are peculiar inventions that allow us to get very pretty low DOF images using all kinds of 35mm lenses on a video camera. That's it.
Lets learn how they work in a responsible intelligent reasoned way.
I'm very sorry if this sounds personal. I hope it doesn't come across as a flame. I really have tried to stay above that throughout my time on this board. I've learned a tremendous amount here and have tried to pay back with my own observations and experience.
When the Letus Extreme came out , you and others made a number of catagorical statements - it was the fastest, sharpest from corner to corner, the most well built by far, etc ... but you had not actually compared it to the others, and many of those claims turned out to be incorrect. I love my Letus, but it has its pros and cons like the others.
I have a great affection for you Barry, have had fruitfull private discussions with you and have learned a great deal from you, but this post was really over the top and demanded a response. Let's stick to the facts.
Lenny Levy
I have to say that your post saddens me a great deal. Why you see the need to personally attack a perfectly good piece of equipment from a reputable and hard working manufacturer who brings his time and expertise to these pages is utterly beyond me. Have you ever actually tested a Brevis?
Let me repeat that I own an SGpro, a Brevis and a Letus Extreme and find pros and cons in all of them. I've found myself often defending the Brevis on these pages only because of inaccurate attacks like this one.
Some of the mistatements of fact in your comments are as follows:
1. First you have twice now misstated the Brevis DOF issue, even though I corrected you last time.
The Brevis CF1L has "MORE" DOF than a Letus or an SGPro not less. Moreover if you compare the DOF of a Redrock, an SGOPro, and Letus they will all be different. Don't say that's impossible - its a fact and any number of people here could tell you the Redrock for example has less apparent DOF. In general - more diffusive GG - less apparent DOF.
So - which one is the "Real 35mm adapter"? - or is it the mini 35 which I'll bet has less DOF than the Letus.
I doubt whether you or anyone else here could say with reliability which of these is closest to the DOF of true 35mm - and by the way is that Academy or super 35? Again, if I had to bet I would guess its the Brevis because it doesn't add additional diffusion due to the GG. It should be closer to the expected optical DOF of film.
I think it would be great for someone to compare DOF on these adapters with that in a chart. I haven't seen it. Have you?
2. The Brevis is just as capable of giving you Academy as any other adapter and like most of the others - (including Redrock & Letus if it was centered) it gives you full frame as well. They sell PL adapters. So that's a complete non issue. I don't know where you got this idea.
But I take issue with the implication from you that there is something wrong with people who wish to use the full SLR framing. I believe the credentials of the DP's who are willing to use SLR framing here are at least equal to those to whom its anathema. So can we please discuss it as an aesthetic choice instead of some god-given principle upon which 35mm adapters were created.
3.
What the...? I own only the fastest Nikon Primes and the excellent Nikon 2.8 80-200. Plenty of other people here using Brevis have invested in good glass. Are you really implying that this tool is only for people who buy cheap glass? Have you seen Marco's feature work and those of other people who've used a Brevis here?
The speed advantage is there for anyone who wants to use a zoom lens, or who would rather shoot with their 35mm lenses at 2 or 2.8. Or save on f1.4 lenses. That's perfectly reasonable Barry.
4.
I don't think either the Letus or SG has 1:1 response below f2.8. As I recall you observed that yourself. They are not as extreme as the Brevis but elicit some of the same behavior, because it is in the nature of the optical behavior of adapters.
5.
Huh...? Dennis designed a screen for minimal loss of light - for those who wanted it. Period - that's all he did. Everything else that seems odd is due to the optics of adapter mechanics and it surprised all of us because we were used to the different optics of film.
What is all this invective here for? Its a tool. You should be thanking him. Let's understand it and see what its real trade offs are. In fact it's especially interesting because it points up how much we have to learn about these contraptions.
6.
What trade offs exactly have you identified? The DOF analogy was completely upside down and you haven't identified that any other adapters would match a DOF chart or true 35mm DOF. The academy vs. 35mm framing issue was a non-starter altogether. Few of them have 1:1 response, but I imagine if that seriously upsets one it could be a downside. Personally I think it would be very easy to work around.
Last month all kinds of people here were announcing that there had to be some kind problem with the Brevis pictures- they must vignette, or they can't handle highlights, etc - but neither you nor anyone else has found anything of significance yet.
6. What I read in your remarks is an appalling lack of curiosity as to how adapters actually behave. What affects their DOF characteristics, What affects their linearity, what are the pros and cons of academy vs. SLR framing and DOF, how to use a DOF chart with any of them, why would the Brevis CF1L act as it does and what are the REAL TRADE OFFS between any of these.
Instead you seem to be measuring them against some imaginary standard that perfectly emulates a 35mm film camera. But at the very best these are not anything like 35mm film cameras. They've got entirely different issues, optics and tradeoffs.
They are peculiar inventions that allow us to get very pretty low DOF images using all kinds of 35mm lenses on a video camera. That's it.
Lets learn how they work in a responsible intelligent reasoned way.
I'm very sorry if this sounds personal. I hope it doesn't come across as a flame. I really have tried to stay above that throughout my time on this board. I've learned a tremendous amount here and have tried to pay back with my own observations and experience.
When the Letus Extreme came out , you and others made a number of catagorical statements - it was the fastest, sharpest from corner to corner, the most well built by far, etc ... but you had not actually compared it to the others, and many of those claims turned out to be incorrect. I love my Letus, but it has its pros and cons like the others.
I have a great affection for you Barry, have had fruitfull private discussions with you and have learned a great deal from you, but this post was really over the top and demanded a response. Let's stick to the facts.
Lenny Levy
Last edited:
philip bloom
Veteran
I am going to NAB and am happy to meet up and go through the 35mm adaptor with people. If enough are interested we could possibly work out some sort of room hire.
Oh and by the way the Brevis CF1 changed everything for me, I shot my homeless portraits on it and many many other things. It was the adaptor that showed me what was possible. I still own it and will continue to use it when we get the ex1 issue fixed with the flip.
Oh and by the way the Brevis CF1 changed everything for me, I shot my homeless portraits on it and many many other things. It was the adaptor that showed me what was possible. I still own it and will continue to use it when we get the ex1 issue fixed with the flip.
DELTA_Rotary
Active member
If there was something at NAB I would love to attend. Barry your Bootcamp sounds great but with teh NAB trip already paid for getting my company to foot the bill for another trip right now would be hard to swing. If you have one later on in the year I would try my best to make it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
You must be kidding. Attack? I'm pointing out that it behaves differently. How is that an attack?
I think you may have read that post with a predisposed notion of what you thought my attitude was going to be. Try re-reading it from a neutral stance and you may see that it reads very differently than what you thought.
Okay, let's attempt to clarify this: I'm saying that with a CF1L the Brefis is going to have deeper DOF than the others. More in focus. That's what I said the last time, that's what I'm saying this time. Is that what you're saying?
Exactly. That's what I'm saying, that's what I've been consistently saying.
Where did you get the term "real 35mm adapter?" Stay on point please. I'm saying "does it emulate the DOF of 35mm movie film?" That is an identifiable, tangible, non-subjective criteria. If it doesn't, and it doesn't even attempt to, then that's a point of data that one should know about. That is not, however, by any stretch of the imagination, an "attack."
Er, well, I disagree. Five minutes with a tape measure and a DOF chart would tell you whether it complies or not. And a cinematographer like David Mullen or Levie Isaacks could probably say within seconds whether it's what they expect or not. Guys like that ask for a lens by name because they know its field of view and DOF characteristics, and they expect a certain level of performance.
It makes no difference whatsoever. If the adapter is emulating film's DOF, it will do so whether you zoom in to Academy or Super35 frame size.
Your assertion would appear to be backwards. Since film is an opaque surface, the more opaque, more diffused ground glass should trap the most light and yield the most consistent DOF. I haven't really understood your argument heretofore; I think you're trying to say that you think that the less-transparent ground glasses are making the image unnecessarily fuzzier or something?
Not yet, and that's exactly what I'd like to see. I am privileged to a lot of extensive in-depth testing results that have identified exactly what the Brevis is doing and how it affects the image, related to light transmission and linearity. I am also aware of tests such as those done by yourself that indicate that there is no DOF difference on a Brevis when opening up from 2.0 to 1.4, etc. Based on both of those, it seems a very simple extrapolation to say that the DOF of the Brevis/CF1 is going to behave similarly to its light linearity. In fact, I'd go so far as to bet $100 on it.
Does that make it "bad"? By no means. But it identifies what the tradeoffs are. And there are always tradeoffs.
I don't even konw what you're talking about here. Who said anything about what frame sizes it's letting you have? All I'm saying is that it doesn't deliver the SAME DOF, and delivers DEEPER DOF, than film would. And that is an important factor, at least for some of us. It is not the only factor, and for many people it's irrelevant. That's fine. But don't you think people would be better off knowing what the tradeoffs are? That is not an "attack". Sheesh, if I point out that the Red has a rolling shutter, is that an "attack"? Or is it information that you'd be glad to know about? Some people don't care at all about a rolling shutter, they know what it does and they know it's not going to affect them. Some know that it prevents the product from being suitable for their purposes. Both are served better by knowing what the situation is.
Straw man argument. You can use all the frame you want, Lenny. I never said you couldn't. Go right ahead, use 6x6 if you want. But please don't try to tell people who have valid reasons for wanting to use a cine frame that they're wrong, and that "full SLR" is "better." They are choices, they are valid choices depending on what you're trying to accomplish. Trying to gloss over the differences does a disservice to the end user.
Frankly, no we cannot, unless you want to give up the term "35mm adapter" and instead refer to it as a "DOF adapter". A 35mm adapter inherently implies that it emulates 35mm, which is what the mini35 was specifically designed as. And if you want to emulate 35mm, you presumably want to emulate the field of view and depth of field characteristics of 35mm. If you are not interested in doing that, and you only care that you're getting shallower DOF than you otherwise would, go right ahead. But recognize that those are not the same thing, please.
Do you really think that's what I just said? Let's try this again: CineVate markets the unit as being especially appropriate for those who have slower lenses. CineVate markets it as saying that you don't have to go out and buy the very fastest lenses on the market, you can save money and use slower lenses because you get equivalent light performance. That is their marketing. That directly translates to what I said, although I assume you're objecting to the term "cheap".
Nowhere did I say or imply that someone using a Brevis is using cheap glass. Nowhere did I say that you cannot get spectacular results with a Brevis. What I did say is to recognize that there are a hell of a lot of users who are strapped for cash and who would love to be able to buy a cheap lens on ebay and for those users the Brevis is especially suitable because they don't pay a penalty in light efficiency for that.
Of course I have. It's fantastic.
And that's exactly what I said. And I thought it was perfectly reasonable too.
But the "speed advantage" does come at a cost, which is deeper DOF and a loss of the shallower DOF that would otherwise come with opening up to 2.0 or 1.4. Or do you disagree with that?
And that extremeness is all I was referencing. The other adapters, as I've recall, are fairly linear from 2.8 on down. The CF1L is not.
Are you reading what I'm writing? Or are you just "assuming" you already know what I'm going to say, and responding to that?
I specifically said that the CF1L "games the system" to provide the ultimate minimal light loss. It does that, but it involves tradeoffs in doing so. For those who want it, they should know what those tradeoffs are. He accomplishes things with it that seem "optically impossible". Just like Pixel Shift creates resolution that would seem mathematically impossible. I am congratulating Dennis on coming up with something that performs startlingly well and seemingly defies the laws of physics. Now, you choose to term that as "invective" but it rather is the opposite of what I meant, and I would think that since I equated it with "pixel shift" that you would realize that I meant it as a good thing. Of course, there are those who decry "pixel shift" so perhaps they would think I meant it as a negative.
I did.
THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO! Sheesh mary louise parker in a handbasket, that's all I'm trying to do. People who ignore the obvious side effects are the ones obfuscating the issue!!!!
Only in your misinterpretation of what I said. The Brevis CF1L exhibits deeper DOF, not shallower. That is what I said and that is what I meant. And that is the tradeoff; that plus the loss of linear light control at anything more open than, say, about f/8.
For you, maybe, but it's borderline outrageous that you could empirically declare that it's a nonissue for everyone else.
Fine -- AS LONG AS YOU KNOW ABOUT IT. That's all I'm trying to do.
There must have been some kind of tradeoff, yes. To deny that is simply irrational. You cannot get something for nothing, there is always a tradeoff. We suspected there must be a hotspot, but frankly there isn't. The tradeoff that exists, as confirmed by the testing that I have been shared but is not my place to reveal, is in the DOF performance and light loss nonlinearity. Now that it has been identified, people are empowered to make an informed decision.
Frankly, I think most of our DVXusers will not care and that it will be, effectively, a nonissue for them. But for some of us it's an issue. Really, you should be "okay" with that.
Interesting choice of invective there. Considering that I think I have probably one of the better understandings of what's going on, and would certainly be willing to put my understanding up against anyone short of an optical engineer. I did not always know how they performed and have been curious. My curiousity is now satisfied.
Isn't that what we've been discussing and, in fact, basically settling here?
That's your interpretation of what they are. And if you're okay with that, then great -- you're happy. But that is not necessarily what they "should" be.
You know, I always found it very curious why Rodney Charters chose the Redrock M2 in that "24" test. Perhaps it's because it behaved the most like what he, an ASC, expected? I don't know, but I could see that as being a possibility.
Please, let's. And the first step is to stop discarding perfectly valid methodology and reasons and criteria.
Says who? I've used every adapter on the market except the Brevis. And I still stand by my claims for the Letus, but one part that you consistently leave out is that: I do not care for any upside down adapter. That is my criteria, and any upside down imagery is, in no uncertain terms, unacceptable to me. We all have our priorities, and that is mine. I'm simply not going to plink around with preposterous workarounds for upside-down-ness. So when the L35FE came out I bought one, and both Steven and I were amazed and delighted with it, even though it certainly had its share of tradeoffs. When the Extreme came out, it erased all the shortcomings of the FE. So I declare it, today, my favorite adapter, having used all of them (excepting only the Brevis). However, the landscape has changed now because there are flip modules that close the gap.
The FACTS is all I'm interested in sticking to. I know that you've taken on adapter-ness as a personal mission, you're one of the most devoted in trying to get to the bottom of all this, and I and the community express our heartfelt thanks to you for doing so. But yes, let's stick to the facts. Observable, scientific, non-subjective evidence, and the understanding of any real-world implications that may come from the different techniques employed by each.
Last edited:
Jeff Anderson
Custom Title!
FWIW I'm in the very early stages of looking for a DOF adapter (being careful with my words 
) for interview/doc work (not run and gun) and now after reading Barry's "attack" (far from an attack in my head), I feel like I have a much better understanding of how the Brevis is doing its "magic". Previously not knowing how it was accomplishing such feats and not knowing the tradeoffs crossed it off my list. Now that I know the tradeoffs its back at the top. I could care less about the 35mm FOV or DOF charts because I'm not familiar with them to begin with, although I could see how for some this could be a MAJOR tradeoff. So thanks Barry for explaining this in some easy to understand language. Still alot of research to do before I start plunking down money though...
Also thought I'd mention that a 35mm section of the bootcamp would be great. Might be interesting to here how the different NLE's cope with flipping as well. Though that's becoming less important now with everyone's adapter flipping for them. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for the Brevis explanation Barry - did you post more info on this anywhere and I missed it?
) for interview/doc work (not run and gun) and now after reading Barry's "attack" (far from an attack in my head), I feel like I have a much better understanding of how the Brevis is doing its "magic". Previously not knowing how it was accomplishing such feats and not knowing the tradeoffs crossed it off my list. Now that I know the tradeoffs its back at the top. I could care less about the 35mm FOV or DOF charts because I'm not familiar with them to begin with, although I could see how for some this could be a MAJOR tradeoff. So thanks Barry for explaining this in some easy to understand language. Still alot of research to do before I start plunking down money though...Also thought I'd mention that a 35mm section of the bootcamp would be great. Might be interesting to here how the different NLE's cope with flipping as well. Though that's becoming less important now with everyone's adapter flipping for them. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for the Brevis explanation Barry - did you post more info on this anywhere and I missed it?
Dennis Wood
DVXuser Sponsor
We've been working on an online version of this...check out our "Video University" link off our main page.
So far, a basic overview, adapter setup, collimation (lens setup) are up and we've got about 10 more segments coming. These will include filter and mattebox use, lens tuning, camera setup etc. etc.
Btw, as far as the previous posts regarding the Brevis and who would want to use it:
1. CF1L has been discontinued and replaced with CF1Le...big difference actually.
2. We offer no less than six imaging element options, and a shooter wanting "linearity" has CF2Le, and CF3Le. We did tests with CF1Le to show its light efficiency, but if you want a different adapter...just drop in CF2Le, or CF3Le. These elements give up light efficiency to provide more "film like" bokeh. In other words, to characterize the adapter in terms of CF1Le only is to ignore the tremendous efforts we've made in R&D to arrvive at CF2 and 3 versions.
3. The Brevis with flip supports lens formats and frame gates from S16, 35 cinema, and as much as 10% usable frame width in excess of the 36mm SLR standard. In other words, pretty much everything out there.
4. No adapter gives you film identical bokeh in terms of shallow depth of field...none of them.
So far, a basic overview, adapter setup, collimation (lens setup) are up and we've got about 10 more segments coming. These will include filter and mattebox use, lens tuning, camera setup etc. etc.
Btw, as far as the previous posts regarding the Brevis and who would want to use it:
1. CF1L has been discontinued and replaced with CF1Le...big difference actually.
2. We offer no less than six imaging element options, and a shooter wanting "linearity" has CF2Le, and CF3Le. We did tests with CF1Le to show its light efficiency, but if you want a different adapter...just drop in CF2Le, or CF3Le. These elements give up light efficiency to provide more "film like" bokeh. In other words, to characterize the adapter in terms of CF1Le only is to ignore the tremendous efforts we've made in R&D to arrvive at CF2 and 3 versions.
3. The Brevis with flip supports lens formats and frame gates from S16, 35 cinema, and as much as 10% usable frame width in excess of the 36mm SLR standard. In other words, pretty much everything out there.
4. No adapter gives you film identical bokeh in terms of shallow depth of field...none of them.
Last edited:
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Barry,
I don't want to get into a flame war with you, but I was moved to respond the way I did because your post was an "attack" and far from a dispassionate consideration of the issues. That is true both in its tone and the way you painted every difference between the Brevis and other adapters in a negative light.
BTW - all of this discussion is not about the Brevis at all, but about a couple of screens available for it the - CF1 series.
I'm going to respond again to a number of points in your second post and then hopefully get on with my life today.
1.
You did not say "deeper DOF" you said it produces shallower DOF - and have said so before. I'm glad that seems to just be a mistake.
2.
You seem to be defining a "35mm adapter" as a tool to strictly emulate 35mm "academy" framing and DOF. That is an assumption and a bias you have brought to the discussion that colors everything you say in this post. It totally confuses the discussion and it is not a "strict interpretation of what an adapter "should" be doing". It was never mine or a lot of others. It's a bad definition.
"35mm adapter" means exactly what it says - it uses 35mm lenses - that includes 35mm SLR lenses and PL mount lenses to get shallower DOF on video. That's all it means and all I and many other people ever assumed it meant. I used mine for a year before I ever even heard that some people insisted on zooming into Academy. 2 years ago I spoke with Brian at Redrock and he told me he thought zooming in to academy probably lowered the resolution of the image. In fact he thought use of the full frame offered on the Nikon's might begin to equalize the difference between PL Mt Zeiss primes that you had to zoom in for.
The lovely thing is our adapters allow us the freedom to use SLR, Academy, Nikons or Pl mounts, or even to zoom in beyond Academy as it suits us. That's what a "35mm adapter" is. But there is nothing in the nature of a 35mm adapter that indicates it is supposed to emulate Academy.
"Optically impossible" and " games the system" are extremely charged charged negative terms that remain false and confusing. There is nothing optically impossible here except your preconceptions about what an adapter is supposed to do.
I do more docs, spots and corporate than features and so do many many video shooters. My clients always want less DOF especially in interviews - so I have the advantage of SLR's lower DOF and I prefer my SG's shallower DOF. It is a godsend to us. On many shoots my client wants a wider shot than my lenses allow. Should I say - Sorry can't do that I'm emulating Acadamy DOF here? I am also wary of too shallow DOF in drama and sometimes need every bit of light I can get. Here the Brevis has an advantage and so might Academy's deeper DOF.
It's an entirely overblown issue and beautiful cinematography has been done in all kinds of formats. That is only my opinion though but it is shared by many here.
If you and others prefer Academy that's great. I would love to become sensitized to the difference. And if someone wants to post examples that show this I would love to be educated. However I know I have never had a client who would care in the slightest. And given that we are working on a wanky $6000, 1/3" chip video camera using "pixel shift" it seems like an odd place to draw the line.
3. The issue of being able to use DOF charts is a very legitimate concern. But instead of shedding light on it you make a lot of statements that just add more haze.
It brings up a number of interesting questions that are worth discussing.
First - I would love to know if any of these adapters actually do deliver the same DOF as 35mm cine lenses. It's not at all obvious on the face of it and since they all have different DOF characteristics I'm skeptical. Then there is the "which circle of confusion" is appropriate. Its complicated.
I haven't seen any SLR DOF charts out there, but i would like to and there should be a simple conversion to equate Academy and SLR DOF. You also should be able to figure out through simple testing what the equivilent DOF should be for a lens on a Brevis CF1L.
Nonlinear response is a problem for using any of these adapters with a chart. My SG test and Letus tests showed a 1 stop or less change between 1.4 and 2.8 so the issue exists there also.
Many professional uses for these adapters however don't require a chart at all, so I see it more as a side issue.
4. You did make a number of catagorical claims for the Letus vis a vis the competition that went well beyond that it was a great right-side up adapter. That would have been fine. Frankly it disturbed me at the time coming from the host of the forum and I think I emailed you privately. One of the reasons I originally did tests was to see if they were right. In fact they weren't because you hadn't done a side by side comparison.
Your recent post disturbed me in a similar way.
5.
Yes true enough, but again you choose the most negative way to color this. To me the real plus is for people who want to use high quality zooms and get the light advantage.
6. I think that you also are falsly positioning your role in the dialogue on this adapter by suggesting that you are the one who is finally revealing the deeper DOF and lack on 1:1 linearity in this adapter. I posted this information over 2 months ago and was met over and over again by a host of people including you telling me my observations were impossible and there had to be some horrible image degredation. I see you finally admit here that isn't. On this post instead of discussing the trade offs dispassionately you frame them all in a very negative light.
In sum the Brevis CF1's act in a way entirely consistent with the behavior of 35mm adapters. There are tradeoffs among all of them but you have only obfuscated the discussion here and done so with obvious preconceptions and bias. I don't think that's fair when people are make buying decisions based on what they read here and give much more weight to your comments. . As the host of this forum, You should be bending over backwards to be scrupulously fair.
All I have ever tried to do on this forum is cut the confusion, BS and conflicting statements and shed some rational light on how these guys behave. I hope we can get back to that.
Lenny Levy
I don't want to get into a flame war with you, but I was moved to respond the way I did because your post was an "attack" and far from a dispassionate consideration of the issues. That is true both in its tone and the way you painted every difference between the Brevis and other adapters in a negative light.
BTW - all of this discussion is not about the Brevis at all, but about a couple of screens available for it the - CF1 series.
I'm going to respond again to a number of points in your second post and then hopefully get on with my life today.
1.
You did not say "deeper DOF" you said it produces shallower DOF - and have said so before. I'm glad that seems to just be a mistake.
2.
You seem to be defining a "35mm adapter" as a tool to strictly emulate 35mm "academy" framing and DOF. That is an assumption and a bias you have brought to the discussion that colors everything you say in this post. It totally confuses the discussion and it is not a "strict interpretation of what an adapter "should" be doing". It was never mine or a lot of others. It's a bad definition.
"35mm adapter" means exactly what it says - it uses 35mm lenses - that includes 35mm SLR lenses and PL mount lenses to get shallower DOF on video. That's all it means and all I and many other people ever assumed it meant. I used mine for a year before I ever even heard that some people insisted on zooming into Academy. 2 years ago I spoke with Brian at Redrock and he told me he thought zooming in to academy probably lowered the resolution of the image. In fact he thought use of the full frame offered on the Nikon's might begin to equalize the difference between PL Mt Zeiss primes that you had to zoom in for.
The lovely thing is our adapters allow us the freedom to use SLR, Academy, Nikons or Pl mounts, or even to zoom in beyond Academy as it suits us. That's what a "35mm adapter" is. But there is nothing in the nature of a 35mm adapter that indicates it is supposed to emulate Academy.
"Optically impossible" and " games the system" are extremely charged charged negative terms that remain false and confusing. There is nothing optically impossible here except your preconceptions about what an adapter is supposed to do.
I do more docs, spots and corporate than features and so do many many video shooters. My clients always want less DOF especially in interviews - so I have the advantage of SLR's lower DOF and I prefer my SG's shallower DOF. It is a godsend to us. On many shoots my client wants a wider shot than my lenses allow. Should I say - Sorry can't do that I'm emulating Acadamy DOF here? I am also wary of too shallow DOF in drama and sometimes need every bit of light I can get. Here the Brevis has an advantage and so might Academy's deeper DOF.
It's an entirely overblown issue and beautiful cinematography has been done in all kinds of formats. That is only my opinion though but it is shared by many here.
If you and others prefer Academy that's great. I would love to become sensitized to the difference. And if someone wants to post examples that show this I would love to be educated. However I know I have never had a client who would care in the slightest. And given that we are working on a wanky $6000, 1/3" chip video camera using "pixel shift" it seems like an odd place to draw the line.
3. The issue of being able to use DOF charts is a very legitimate concern. But instead of shedding light on it you make a lot of statements that just add more haze.
It brings up a number of interesting questions that are worth discussing.
First - I would love to know if any of these adapters actually do deliver the same DOF as 35mm cine lenses. It's not at all obvious on the face of it and since they all have different DOF characteristics I'm skeptical. Then there is the "which circle of confusion" is appropriate. Its complicated.
I haven't seen any SLR DOF charts out there, but i would like to and there should be a simple conversion to equate Academy and SLR DOF. You also should be able to figure out through simple testing what the equivilent DOF should be for a lens on a Brevis CF1L.
Nonlinear response is a problem for using any of these adapters with a chart. My SG test and Letus tests showed a 1 stop or less change between 1.4 and 2.8 so the issue exists there also.
Many professional uses for these adapters however don't require a chart at all, so I see it more as a side issue.
4. You did make a number of catagorical claims for the Letus vis a vis the competition that went well beyond that it was a great right-side up adapter. That would have been fine. Frankly it disturbed me at the time coming from the host of the forum and I think I emailed you privately. One of the reasons I originally did tests was to see if they were right. In fact they weren't because you hadn't done a side by side comparison.
Your recent post disturbed me in a similar way.
5.
Yes true enough, but again you choose the most negative way to color this. To me the real plus is for people who want to use high quality zooms and get the light advantage.
6. I think that you also are falsly positioning your role in the dialogue on this adapter by suggesting that you are the one who is finally revealing the deeper DOF and lack on 1:1 linearity in this adapter. I posted this information over 2 months ago and was met over and over again by a host of people including you telling me my observations were impossible and there had to be some horrible image degredation. I see you finally admit here that isn't. On this post instead of discussing the trade offs dispassionately you frame them all in a very negative light.
In sum the Brevis CF1's act in a way entirely consistent with the behavior of 35mm adapters. There are tradeoffs among all of them but you have only obfuscated the discussion here and done so with obvious preconceptions and bias. I don't think that's fair when people are make buying decisions based on what they read here and give much more weight to your comments. . As the host of this forum, You should be bending over backwards to be scrupulously fair.
All I have ever tried to do on this forum is cut the confusion, BS and conflicting statements and shed some rational light on how these guys behave. I hope we can get back to that.
Lenny Levy
Last edited:
Lenilenapi said:
This is where I keep getting lost. Would you tell them no if you were using a RED ONE? I honestly don't think so, and RED ONE is setup for standards and adheres to them.
So why would you tell them no with a 35mm adapter adhering to those same standards unless you just didn't have the wider lens in your arsenal? In that case, the adapter not providing a non-standard SLR FOV for moving pictures isn't at fault, it's the non-availability of proper equipment (subject: lens) that makes it impossible for the production.
There are 14mm lenses out there. S35, 35, Red One, Viper, Genesis, F23 all adhere to a 35mm FOV standard. Has anyone ever heard of DP's not getting wide enough shots out of these cameras which are hard limited to a standard?
I'm all for using SLR framing or a larger frame for an out-of-the-box shot. I've stated this as well, many times over. Music videos, some commercials, even some narrative shots. But, if a focal length isn't behaving like one would expect when dealing with moving images or cinema, how could another expect to achieve similar results? I.E a pleasing image to the mass audience?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Lenny... I've tried to explain repeatedly that my comments come from a certain perspective, which were a) that I expect it to act a certain way in relation to f-stop and DOF performance and AOV, and b) that rightside-up was a paramount consideration.
You, on the other hand, seem to ignore my perspective and treat your own perspective as if it's the only one that matters, and the things that I bring up are irrelevant or non-issues. Fine, you're allowed to do so, but it makes it rather difficult to achieve common ground. Especially when you keep throwing out statements such as "false claims" -- little more than a way to call me a liar, and let me assure you it's a) not appreciated at all, and b) not true. Somehow you seem to have appointed yourself as the "Brevis Police" to challenge me on anything I say, as if I somehow I'm dead set to attack one of my forum's sponsors?
So, let us put it like this: you cannot tell me what I meant. You cannot call my post an attack -- you are not inside my head. You have been profoundly presumptive in most, if not all, of your posts related to what I've said about the Brevis, and while I do try to be patient, it is getting tiresome. I could go line-by-line and refute your post and your outrageous allegations, but -- to hell with it. Suffice it to say that I categorically reject your very unflattering characterizations. I will be charitable and say that I think you simply must not understand what I meant.
For the record: I do not care what adapter anyone buys. I really don't. I do take an interest in seeing them be educated as to what they actually do, so that they can choose the one that best suits them. I am sure that there are some people who care to know what the differences are, and when those differences may cause them issues. I'm sure there are many, like jdajda above, who will agree that the side effects are of no concern to them and so now they can more readily proceed with buying a Brevis/CF1. Furthermore, the particular issues with the CF1-series screen is related only to that, and the Brevis is unique among adapters in offering interchangeability and a choice, so -- that is a good thing.
What I have always objected to, and will continue to object to, is a blanket portrayal of something as "better" or as an "advantage" without exploring what the potential side effects or tradeoffs are. If that inconveniences someone (whether a manufacturer, a sponsor, a user, whoever) well, too bad. The bottom will be gotten to.
The CineVate Brevis is a fine product with many extremely satisfied users and has made some gorgeous imagery. It is unique in that it allows for interchangeable screens, and it also has the ability to use a highly transmissive screen (the CF1 series) to achieve higher sensitivity than other adapters even at deeper f-stops. The tradeoff would be that it does not respond to f-stop changes as linearly as other adapters, nor does it (when using that screen) demonstrate comparable DOF to other adapters. Some people will find that a complete non-issue, and for them the Brevis with CF1 would be a great choice. Some may find that completely unacceptable. For them, they may still find the Brevis an excellent choice, but may want to instead use CF2 or CF3-series screens. Or they may want to shop for a different adapter.
With that said -- have a great day, no hard feelings, and please do continue to reveal what these various tools actually do and don't do. That's all I'm trying to do. But I do caution you about making statements such as in your prior post, those are most definitely not appreciated. At all.
You, on the other hand, seem to ignore my perspective and treat your own perspective as if it's the only one that matters, and the things that I bring up are irrelevant or non-issues. Fine, you're allowed to do so, but it makes it rather difficult to achieve common ground. Especially when you keep throwing out statements such as "false claims" -- little more than a way to call me a liar, and let me assure you it's a) not appreciated at all, and b) not true. Somehow you seem to have appointed yourself as the "Brevis Police" to challenge me on anything I say, as if I somehow I'm dead set to attack one of my forum's sponsors?
So, let us put it like this: you cannot tell me what I meant. You cannot call my post an attack -- you are not inside my head. You have been profoundly presumptive in most, if not all, of your posts related to what I've said about the Brevis, and while I do try to be patient, it is getting tiresome. I could go line-by-line and refute your post and your outrageous allegations, but -- to hell with it. Suffice it to say that I categorically reject your very unflattering characterizations. I will be charitable and say that I think you simply must not understand what I meant.
For the record: I do not care what adapter anyone buys. I really don't. I do take an interest in seeing them be educated as to what they actually do, so that they can choose the one that best suits them. I am sure that there are some people who care to know what the differences are, and when those differences may cause them issues. I'm sure there are many, like jdajda above, who will agree that the side effects are of no concern to them and so now they can more readily proceed with buying a Brevis/CF1. Furthermore, the particular issues with the CF1-series screen is related only to that, and the Brevis is unique among adapters in offering interchangeability and a choice, so -- that is a good thing.
What I have always objected to, and will continue to object to, is a blanket portrayal of something as "better" or as an "advantage" without exploring what the potential side effects or tradeoffs are. If that inconveniences someone (whether a manufacturer, a sponsor, a user, whoever) well, too bad. The bottom will be gotten to.
The CineVate Brevis is a fine product with many extremely satisfied users and has made some gorgeous imagery. It is unique in that it allows for interchangeable screens, and it also has the ability to use a highly transmissive screen (the CF1 series) to achieve higher sensitivity than other adapters even at deeper f-stops. The tradeoff would be that it does not respond to f-stop changes as linearly as other adapters, nor does it (when using that screen) demonstrate comparable DOF to other adapters. Some people will find that a complete non-issue, and for them the Brevis with CF1 would be a great choice. Some may find that completely unacceptable. For them, they may still find the Brevis an excellent choice, but may want to instead use CF2 or CF3-series screens. Or they may want to shop for a different adapter.
With that said -- have a great day, no hard feelings, and please do continue to reveal what these various tools actually do and don't do. That's all I'm trying to do. But I do caution you about making statements such as in your prior post, those are most definitely not appreciated. At all.
Last edited:
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Barry,
I don't think at this point we actually disagree on anything technical anymore and I think your summation about the Brevis is fine.
For the record I don't think you were clear that your remarks were based on your personal perspective but instead based on " what a 35mm adapter ought to do". For inexperienced people looking here for information that will affect their purchases I think your language created a very unfair impression. That concerned me greatly.
I don't object to your perspective or to anyone preferring to emulate 35mm cine framing or DOF. Those are legitimate aesthetic choices. My problem was only with the idea that somehow it was based on the way things are "supposed" to be.
Incidentally I would never ever call you a liar. Though I stand by everything I said, I would never accuse you of intentional distortion , ill-will, or intentionally making false statements.
I agree completely. No hard feelings here either. Lets let it drop here and I hope remain friends.
I have suggested to Timur that many of these interesting complicated and confusing issues - DOF , linearity, frame size, etc. would be well served in dedicated stickies where we could really have an enlightening discussion about them. Instead they keep creeping into threads that begin on other subjects, become adversarial and only get half dealt with.
In a few months when the B4 adapter mounts start coming in from Cinevate, Letus and others, these discussions will explode into a wider arena. You will start seeing the same issues on the professional cinematography list.
It would be nice if we built up a body of knowledge from our experience and there was a central place to go where people could really hear the pros and cons of these technical issues and learn from each other. I don't pretend to have all the answers.
Lenny Levy
I don't think at this point we actually disagree on anything technical anymore and I think your summation about the Brevis is fine.
For the record I don't think you were clear that your remarks were based on your personal perspective but instead based on " what a 35mm adapter ought to do". For inexperienced people looking here for information that will affect their purchases I think your language created a very unfair impression. That concerned me greatly.
I don't object to your perspective or to anyone preferring to emulate 35mm cine framing or DOF. Those are legitimate aesthetic choices. My problem was only with the idea that somehow it was based on the way things are "supposed" to be.
Incidentally I would never ever call you a liar. Though I stand by everything I said, I would never accuse you of intentional distortion , ill-will, or intentionally making false statements.
I agree completely. No hard feelings here either. Lets let it drop here and I hope remain friends.
I have suggested to Timur that many of these interesting complicated and confusing issues - DOF , linearity, frame size, etc. would be well served in dedicated stickies where we could really have an enlightening discussion about them. Instead they keep creeping into threads that begin on other subjects, become adversarial and only get half dealt with.
In a few months when the B4 adapter mounts start coming in from Cinevate, Letus and others, these discussions will explode into a wider arena. You will start seeing the same issues on the professional cinematography list.
It would be nice if we built up a body of knowledge from our experience and there was a central place to go where people could really hear the pros and cons of these technical issues and learn from each other. I don't pretend to have all the answers.
Lenny Levy