Which 35mm adapter is right? at DVinfo.net

Sean Seah · October 3rd, 2005, 06:53 PM

I have been lurking ard here n learnt a lot about 35mm adapters. Now the burning question is,there r so many adapters around,which r the better ones for HC1? These r the few I have seen

1. Guerilla 35 (prototype but US$1000)
2. Redrock Micro M2 (US$500)
3. Formatt Matte (UK150)
4. Letus35 (US$300)

Seems like all of em were designed for the larger cameras like Sony FX1. I wonder if it will work well for HC1. Besides that, is it true that using such adapters will result in a reversed image on the screen? They looks kinda tough to handle. Is that why I some of the rigs have additional TFT screens to flip the image to the correct orientation?

http://www.robertrobertproductions.com/m2/angle.jpg

Cody Dulock · October 3rd, 2005, 07:19 PM

yes, the image is flipped and flopped (also known as a 180 degree rotation), thats why people use external monitors to view the images upright.

i know that the redrock M2 will work with pretty much any camera. it most likely will work for the HC-1, im not sure if its been tested or not yet. i can't speak for the other adapters.

Sean Seah · October 3rd, 2005, 09:22 PM

That would mean the 180 deg rotation has be edited in the NLE rite? I gotta check how Vegas can do that..shouldnt be a prob I think.

Yes I'm looking at the Redrock as well.I'm just wondering about some comments I saw at Guerilla forum claiming that this device can lead to some ghosting..

Dan Diaconu · October 3rd, 2005, 10:22 PM

I did not test the MPIC (the fifth choice) on HC1 but the 1/3" CMOS is the same as DVX100A (3x1/3"CCD). I can only guess the lens design covers about the same range, so it should work fine.
Here is a frame from footage (Z1):
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album16/felix_yawn?full=1

Matthew Wauhkonen · October 3rd, 2005, 10:55 PM

From what I gather, Dan's adapter and the G35 seem like the two best. But we shall see soon enough. They both seem to have good light transmission, no "ghosting," excellent form factors, sharp resolution, and good achromats (is Dan even using an achromat?). I have to admit, microwax is my favorite, so I'm probably going to go with the G35. (Microwax produces a beautiful "organic" gamma curve in addition to rich colors and sharp resoution, but it also means a static adapter so there may be grain.) The M2 looks okay, but the bulkiness, motion artifacts, and ghosting seem to rule it out for my purposes, although others may prefer it for its low light capabilities. The L35 has a great design but the macro lens on it is a piece of junk. I know; I use one of the same brand.

Here's an image from the "beta" version of my home built microwax adapter:

http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm1.jpg

I could probably mass produce and sell these (with better image quality than is visible here--sharper edges and less vignetting) for about $70 each. Then again, they're built out of PVC pipe....

And no, that's not "static grain" it's "my dvx produces so much noise when set to outdoors white balance" grain.

Dan Diaconu · October 3rd, 2005, 11:28 PM

Matthew,

The image you posted (as well as others originated from microwaxed screens) is indeed gorgeous. I have made my experiments here using quite a few different types of screens (not microwax but POC which is very close) and I have learned to love them all. (only sin is a bit of vigneting)

Each one can be used on a certain light "scheme" (contrast, low ight, etc) and THIS is the very reason I have gone through hell to make it in such way so one can change the screens in MPIC to suit the light. A refinement (I dare to say) as it always happens with "labour of love" (and no, I do not use an achromat, although I bought one from Century (what a fine piece of glass!... luve it!)

Michael Maier · October 4th, 2005, 01:15 AM

What's a Formatt Matte?

Fredrik-Larsson · October 4th, 2005, 06:46 AM

I am using the Letus35 for my HC1. You can read the thread http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49313 and see some of the pictures of the rig and some demo movies.

Matthew Wauhkonen · October 4th, 2005, 08:43 AM

Dan, I totally agree about different screens producing different results. I like the slightly thicker ones (like I'm using) since they seem to increase dynamic range, but they do so at the cost of needing quite a bit more light. Multiple screens would indeed be a pretty great feature, if you could pull it off.

Sean Seah · October 4th, 2005, 06:47 PM

Is the MPIC an off the shelf or DIY adapter? I couldnt find much info yet.

Eric Brown · October 4th, 2005, 08:23 PM

Hey, Sean. Welcome to the forum! A Formatte Matte (box) is not a 35mm adapter. It's just what you said it is, a matte box made by Bogen.
Just a little FYI.

Dan Diaconu · October 4th, 2005, 08:42 PM

Sean,
MPIC is not a DIY product. Welcome to the forum.

Glen Hurd · October 4th, 2005, 10:13 PM

Matthew, how do the thicker ones increase dynamic range? Or do you mean they don't wash out shadows as easily (like the glass ones do), and thus better replicate the range that is out there? To increase dynamic range, either the brights would have to be subdued and/or the shadows would have to get lighter -- all without losing detail. If the thicker wax is somehow doing this, I'd love to know!
As for gamma curve, is this subjective or have you made measurements?
It seems that in the footage from my own wax-adapter-in-progress, the highlights don't blow out like I'd expect them to, and I'm not sure why. The shadows do stay dark, which is nice. Is that what you're referring to? Is it really possible that wax can subdue highlights without darkening midtones and shadows as well? If you are right, then they have an even greater advantage than I'd imagined. Not only are they solving the DOF weakness of video, but also addressing the comparative lack of exposure latitude.
Like you, I'm a big fan of the wax adapters, but am confused by your statements.

Dan, I find your site a little confusing to navigate. Do you mind me asking if you've tested your non-achromat adapter on cameras with 70mm or larger lenses? Are they using macro extensions, then? Is your system exclusively SLR-GG-Video then?

Thanks to you both,

G

Dan Diaconu · October 4th, 2005, 11:29 PM

<<<<Dan, I find your site a little confusing to navigate.<<<<<
a... little? hehehe... the "STANDARD" of "thrown together" gets redefined... (work in progress).
>>>> ...70mm or larger lenses?<<<<<
DVX, Z1, XL2 ? Yes!
<<<<Is your system exclusively SLR-GG-Video then?>>>>>
Yes (and no; I have two UV/dust protecting filters)

Sean Seah · October 4th, 2005, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Brown

Hey, Sean. Welcome to the forum! A Formatte Matte (box) is not a 35mm adapter. It's just what you said it is, a matte box made by Bogen.
Just a little FYI.

Oops!! Ok, let me try to find out more on MPIC. Thanks again!

October 3rd, 2005, 06:53 PM	#1
Sean Seah Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,498	Which 35mm adapter is right? I have been lurking ard here n learnt a lot about 35mm adapters. Now the burning question is,there r so many adapters around,which r the better ones for HC1? These r the few I have seen 1. Guerilla 35 (prototype but US$1000) 2. Redrock Micro M2 (US$500) 3. Formatt Matte (UK150) 4. Letus35 (US$300) Seems like all of em were designed for the larger cameras like Sony FX1. I wonder if it will work well for HC1. Besides that, is it true that using such adapters will result in a reversed image on the screen? They looks kinda tough to handle. Is that why I some of the rigs have additional TFT screens to flip the image to the correct orientation? http://www.robertrobertproductions.com/m2/angle.jpg

October 4th, 2005, 06:46 AM	#8
Fredrik-Larsson Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Malmö, Sweden Posts: 395	I am using the Letus35 for my HC1. You can read the thread http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49313 and see some of the pictures of the rig and some demo movies. __________________ The Russian Captain (upcoming feature) http://trc-movie.blogspot.com/ My movies http://www.larssonfilm.com/

October 3rd, 2005, 07:19 PM	#2
Cody Dulock Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: arlington, texas Posts: 420	yes, the image is flipped and flopped (also known as a 180 degree rotation), thats why people use external monitors to view the images upright. i know that the redrock M2 will work with pretty much any camera. it most likely will work for the HC-1, im not sure if its been tested or not yet. i can't speak for the other adapters.

October 3rd, 2005, 09:22 PM	#3
Sean Seah Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,498	That would mean the 180 deg rotation has be edited in the NLE rite? I gotta check how Vegas can do that..shouldnt be a prob I think. Yes I'm looking at the Redrock as well.I'm just wondering about some comments I saw at Guerilla forum claiming that this device can lead to some ghosting..

October 3rd, 2005, 10:22 PM	#4
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	I did not test the MPIC (the fifth choice) on HC1 but the 1/3" CMOS is the same as DVX100A (3x1/3"CCD). I can only guess the lens design covers about the same range, so it should work fine. Here is a frame from footage (Z1): http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album16/felix_yawn?full=1

October 3rd, 2005, 10:55 PM	#5
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	From what I gather, Dan's adapter and the G35 seem like the two best. But we shall see soon enough. They both seem to have good light transmission, no "ghosting," excellent form factors, sharp resolution, and good achromats (is Dan even using an achromat?). I have to admit, microwax is my favorite, so I'm probably going to go with the G35. (Microwax produces a beautiful "organic" gamma curve in addition to rich colors and sharp resoution, but it also means a static adapter so there may be grain.) The M2 looks okay, but the bulkiness, motion artifacts, and ghosting seem to rule it out for my purposes, although others may prefer it for its low light capabilities. The L35 has a great design but the macro lens on it is a piece of junk. I know; I use one of the same brand. Here's an image from the "beta" version of my home built microwax adapter: http://home.comcast.net/~kittyluv/35mm1.jpg I could probably mass produce and sell these (with better image quality than is visible here--sharper edges and less vignetting) for about $70 each. Then again, they're built out of PVC pipe.... And no, that's not "static grain" it's "my dvx produces so much noise when set to outdoors white balance" grain.

October 3rd, 2005, 11:28 PM	#6
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Matthew, The image you posted (as well as others originated from microwaxed screens) is indeed gorgeous. I have made my experiments here using quite a few different types of screens (not microwax but POC which is very close) and I have learned to love them all. (only sin is a bit of vigneting) Each one can be used on a certain light "scheme" (contrast, low ight, etc) and THIS is the very reason I have gone through hell to make it in such way so one can change the screens in MPIC to suit the light. A refinement (I dare to say) as it always happens with "labour of love" (and no, I do not use an achromat, although I bought one from Century (what a fine piece of glass!... luve it!)

October 4th, 2005, 01:15 AM	#7
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	What's a Formatt Matte?

October 4th, 2005, 08:43 AM	#9
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	Dan, I totally agree about different screens producing different results. I like the slightly thicker ones (like I'm using) since they seem to increase dynamic range, but they do so at the cost of needing quite a bit more light. Multiple screens would indeed be a pretty great feature, if you could pull it off.

October 4th, 2005, 06:47 PM	#10
Sean Seah Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,498	Is the MPIC an off the shelf or DIY adapter? I couldnt find much info yet.

October 4th, 2005, 08:23 PM	#11
Eric Brown Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 427	Hey, Sean. Welcome to the forum! A Formatte Matte (box) is not a 35mm adapter. It's just what you said it is, a matte box made by Bogen. Just a little FYI.

October 4th, 2005, 08:42 PM	#12
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Sean, MPIC is not a DIY product. Welcome to the forum.

October 4th, 2005, 10:13 PM	#13
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	Matthew, how do the thicker ones increase dynamic range? Or do you mean they don't wash out shadows as easily (like the glass ones do), and thus better replicate the range that is out there? To increase dynamic range, either the brights would have to be subdued and/or the shadows would have to get lighter -- all without losing detail. If the thicker wax is somehow doing this, I'd love to know! As for gamma curve, is this subjective or have you made measurements? It seems that in the footage from my own wax-adapter-in-progress, the highlights don't blow out like I'd expect them to, and I'm not sure why. The shadows do stay dark, which is nice. Is that what you're referring to? Is it really possible that wax can subdue highlights without darkening midtones and shadows as well? If you are right, then they have an even greater advantage than I'd imagined. Not only are they solving the DOF weakness of video, but also addressing the comparative lack of exposure latitude. Like you, I'm a big fan of the wax adapters, but am confused by your statements. Dan, I find your site a little confusing to navigate. Do you mind me asking if you've tested your non-achromat adapter on cameras with 70mm or larger lenses? Are they using macro extensions, then? Is your system exclusively SLR-GG-Video then? Thanks to you both, G

October 4th, 2005, 11:29 PM	#14
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	<<<<Dan, I find your site a little confusing to navigate.<<<<< a... little? hehehe... the "STANDARD" of "thrown together" gets redefined... (work in progress). >>>> ...70mm or larger lenses?<<<<< DVX, Z1, XL2 ? Yes! <<<<Is your system exclusively SLR-GG-Video then?>>>>> Yes (and no; I have two UV/dust protecting filters)