Guerilla35 footage - uncompressed!

Chris Hurd · May 8th, 2005, 08:01 PM

Quote:

even though your bro is in the same business! James is your brother, right?

Umm... nope! James Hurd and I are not related, as far as we know!

Hurd is kind of a rare name in the U.S. but it's pretty common in the U.K.

Bill Porter · May 9th, 2005, 03:46 AM

Hello,

No troll here. You can check my IP address (I assume it is logged). And I will point out that I have yet to see a single G35 troll pop up anywhere so you should hold them in high regard. Like I already said, if they were such rabid self-promoters as to create a fake identity, they would have started at the easiest spot to promote: improving their own website.

My hat is off to Chris Hurd for being a big enough person to admit his feelings of "I wish that were born here". I feel the same way! Though it's become clear to me that the G35 guys didn't stumble across a magic combination that we all didn't see; they developed theirs by working their rears off. So I don't feel so bad about not having had the same results yet. :)

Matthew has some points although, again, they are somewhat off topic (<<It's 3 things that determine "film look">>) as I am not trying to achieve a film look, and the point of this thread was simply to share some feedback on someone else's DOF device.

Oscar, you are awfully defensive considering your only contribution to this thread was to post something you admit was a stupid joke. So my reaction was not out of line. As far as my supposedly refuting everything else anyone says, that's a gross exaggeration and shows how colored your view of my posts is. The reality is that I agreed with one person and disagreed with another. Scroll up and see for yourself :)

As far as disagreeing, am I not allowed to have my own opinion?

Charles, thanks for your reply, it was pretty mellow. As we just witnessed, it's rare to find anybody on a forum who doesn't start to get hostile with anybody not seeing things their way, or to find anybody who doesn't react with suspicion and start hollering "troll" when they see anyone giving a thumbs-up to a company. So, I appreciated reading both your replies as they were civil and not paranoid.

I agree that lots of people are interested in shallow DOF, and that fewer people are into 24 fps. It's my opinion that shallow DOF creates a bigger change as far as the layperson is concerned, when talking about interlaced video on a 4:3 television. And I agree that 24 fps, especially progressively shot footage, makes a big difference. I just think my viewers, viewing the stuff I shoot, wouldn't notice it as much as shallow DOF. So given that clarification, I think we actually agree.

My first movies with my untuned DOF device had my viewers saying "Wow, that looks like an old 8mm movie!" I don't know whether it was the grain or the fuzzy, vignetted image. :) But I am reasonably sure that if I had shot it in 24 fps without a DOF device, none of my viewers would have noticed anything better about it.

I can understand you thinking I was one of the many who wonder why their footage wasn't magically transformed by simple lens improvement. And I can understand why you figured I was after film look: pretty much everyone else IS! But, I am willing to settle for what I get, because I need a camera that is very small so it's not obtrusive on vacation or at gatherings. Even a Sony VX2000/2100 is way too big for me.

Speaking of compact size- Charles, the G35 is bigger than my device, at least for the time being. I made mine small enough to be compact, at the expense of image quality. If I were shooting movies or documentaries I would use whatever size device I needed to, though.

What got me started was trying to capture a shot where I drew the viewer's attention from one family member to another. We were all sitting around a table, and because I couldn't "rack" another person into focus, it made for one long, less captivating shot without a nice flow to it. I started looking into it on the internet and found the mediachance site, and then James Hurd's, and I was off and running.

Speaking of my setup, somebody in an earlier post said he felt tricked because I have a tiny camera and so on, as if that meant we couldn't be just as interested as those with big cameras. Are these 3-chip Panasonics the underclass or what? GS400's can shoot some really nice images. If you don't believe me look at Dan Diaconu's setup. Also I have seen nice shots from Rok, J. Provast, and others.

Mandy, yes, I have an adapter as you will see in my previous posts. I came here looking to give and receive information on the subject. So I would be happy to email you a screen grab. It is really nothing to write home about. That is why I am still looking to compare notes with other people, as in my previous posts. Oh, to answer your other question, the pricing info I got on the G35 was from reading their forums. There are very few posts on there so you can read it all in just a few minutes. Again, if the G35 guys were such aggressive self-marketers to go as far as trolling, they would have at least put up some product pictures or some pricing on their site instead of just leaving it buried in their forums. But anyone who knows personalities knows the inventor type is good at sweat and persistence, and is not as good at self-promoting, politicking, etc. In business school it's taught that the old saw about "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" is untrue. Many examples are given of inferior products beating superior products in the marketplace, because the hardworking inventor personality typically has little taste for wearing the salesperson or marketing person hat, whereas the born salesperson/promoter usually doesn't care what they are selling; they just want to sell, sell, sell, and make money. That is why the stereotypes exist of the used car salesperson who makes good money, and of the broke, genius inventor who hated bothering with sales stuff like promoting or buying advertisements or dealing with the public.

I hope I either spurred some people into continuing development on their own devices ("look at what can be done!"), or to investigate buying the G35, as I think it has earned a look. If that's too much for anyone, I can go back to lurking and leeching info without sharing! ;-)

Thanks for reading!
BP

:)

Charles Papert · May 9th, 2005, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

I agree that lots of people are interested in shallow DOF, and that fewer people are into 24 fps. It's my opinion that shallow DOF creates a bigger change as far as the layperson is concerned, when talking about interlaced video on a 4:3 television. And I agree that 24 fps, especially progressively shot footage, makes a big difference. I just think my viewers, viewing the stuff I shoot, wouldn't notice it as much as shallow DOF. So given that clarification, I think we actually agree.:)

Well, actually, we still disagree--I maintain that more laypeople respond to the 24p cadence than the DoF change. But as you said, nothing wrong with differing opinions!

I looked at their website, the results are quite nice. Hope you contine to enjoy your system!

Oscar Spierenburg · May 9th, 2005, 08:53 AM

Bill,

I'm not defensive at all. I agree with Chris Hurd that one should give new people the benefit of the doubt.
But surely new people who don't know 'old' people sense of humor should give them the benefit of the doubt too. So I didn't like you taking my post as an insult. I found it humorous that someone who presents himself as an amateur with a tiny camera starts to promote a product like a pro. And I still find it humorous that someone with a tiny camera starts to debate the difference with a pro or semi-pro 24p camera. You can disagree with everything you want, no problem, I just find the context funny, but this has come out as a weird discussion.

Matthew Wauhkonen · May 9th, 2005, 09:26 AM

No need to defend yourself! We believe you. I'm excited by the prospect of using real lenses, too. I love manual f-stops and everything. I feel like I'm in control on a much more direct level.

One thing. Super 8 has a very DEEP depth of focus; similar to a 1/3'' CCD. (My 8mm camera uses an f1.2 lens and 8mm is a little bigger so inbetwen a 1/3'' and a 1/2'' CCD DOF maybe, but close to 1/3''.) It was probably the graininess that made your footage look like super 8, and also the fact that it's easy to shoot super 8 out of focus by accident. The flare effect of mini-35 devices does seem to give an organic softness and grainines (which, to be honest, I don't want since I can replicate it in post but I can't gain extra resolution in post.) Also, super 8 is often shot at 16-18fps I believe so it should be ultra-studdery. Nonetheless, I'm impressed you got a mini35 style adapter working on your own (I have no idea how I'd get one working well) and it probably creates a really cool looking effect.

Jonathan Houser · May 9th, 2005, 10:31 AM

Hello,
First off, thank you Bill. Bill has e-mailed me a number of times over the past weeks with some questions in regards to his adapter. He has put a bunch of time and effort (as has many of you) into building a static adapter so naturally he was stoked to see that we were making one that was producing a pretty good image. I think it's cool that he is putting such effort into making cool home videos. Rock on Bill!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Honestly I have to admit to feeling just slightly miffed over the fact that the Guerilla 35 was not born here. This forum is supposed to be the place where all good concepts come from, but G35 started somewhere else; we had no part in it. Does that make me just a tad bit jealous? Sure it does. But it doesn't take anything away from the G35; I'm sure it's really "all that" and more. I just wish we had germinated it like we did the Micro35 thingy and the Reel Stream Andromeda.
Y'all please feel free to discuss Guerilla 35 all you want here. There are no constrictions on good healthy discussion topics, even if we didn't invent the dang thing. Full speed ahead,

Many thanks Chris. Don't get too upset. A fair amount our inspiration and development came from Innovative members on this site. One of the main reasons we have not posted on here is because of it's presumed relationship with James Hurd. He has done an amazing job with hands on development on this board. We chose to just work and test and post when we felt we were ready. So Chris, your site had more to do with our inception than you may think.

We have been developing for 8 or so months. This forum rocks and we give much credit to it for its open discussion.

When it all comes down to it. These are just pieces of metal and glass we stick on our video cameras. No need to get too fired up about them. :) Now if we could only develop a magical adapter that could make our actors better... More on that later.

Bill Porter · May 9th, 2005, 10:55 AM

Thanks, Matthew. That is the most interesting post I have read so far on this topic. I have never used an 8mm film camera, only an oooooold Sony camcorder, so I was not aware of those things. Now that you point out about the super deep DOF and very slow frame rate of Super 8, I guess it must have been the out of focus and the grain that my viewers were referring to.

Don't be too impressed. My adapter is not mini35 style. It is a static adapter. Spacers, GG, macro, and epoxy. Since I use it as a travel camera, and I shoot so much tape during my outings, I thought a static one would be more appropriate (less weight, more compact, no batteries).

Oscar,
<<I'm not defensive at all.>>
I rest my case!

:)

Chris Hurd · May 9th, 2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

As we just witnessed, it's rare to find anybody on a forum who doesn't start to get hostile with anybody not seeing things their way, or to find anybody who doesn't react with suspicion and start hollering "troll" when they see anyone giving a thumbs-up to a company. So, I appreciated reading both your replies as they were civil and not paranoid.

Howdy from Texas,

Well it certainly isn't rare *here* despite what your first impressions may be. DV Info Net was founded on a flame-free principle. Our real-names policy goes a long way toward keeping the trolls and flames at bay, but every once in awhile, some flames escape, and that's an unfortunate side effect of having an online community that has grown exponentially to its current size 305,000 messages in 40,000 topics from 16,000 members. Our volunteer moderators do their best to keep flaming in check.

As a new member, you can can certainly do your part in assisting with our flame-free policy by rigidly following these guidelines:

Observe how the community operates for awhile before making that first post.
Try to keep the zeal factor toned down to avoid sounding like you're selling something.
Debate the topic. Don't debate each other.
Keep it technical. I don't want personal remarks on this board.
If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all.
If you are the target of a flame, DO NOT RESPOND WITH A FLAME of your own.
Report the offensive post to a moderator (there's a "report" link on every page).
A moderator or myself will review the post and cull it or pare it down.
Rest assured that we leave technical info intact; we only excize flames.
If you choose to fuel the fire, it only makes our job that much harder.
A new member who continuously participates in flaming gets booted, by me.
Once again: if you are the target of a flame, DO NOT RESPOND WITH A FLAME of your own. Just report it and we'll take care of the rest.

Welcome to DV Info Net -- not your average message board,

Bill Porter · May 9th, 2005, 08:08 PM

Hear hear! You sound like a pretty exemplary moderator. Terrific, keep up the good work. The world could use more of you, that's for sure.

Thanks!
BP

:)

May 9th, 2005, 03:46 AM	#17
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Hello, No troll here. You can check my IP address (I assume it is logged). And I will point out that I have yet to see a single G35 troll pop up anywhere so you should hold them in high regard. Like I already said, if they were such rabid self-promoters as to create a fake identity, they would have started at the easiest spot to promote: improving their own website. My hat is off to Chris Hurd for being a big enough person to admit his feelings of "I wish that were born here". I feel the same way! Though it's become clear to me that the G35 guys didn't stumble across a magic combination that we all didn't see; they developed theirs by working their rears off. So I don't feel so bad about not having had the same results yet. :) Matthew has some points although, again, they are somewhat off topic (<<It's 3 things that determine "film look">>) as I am not trying to achieve a film look, and the point of this thread was simply to share some feedback on someone else's DOF device. Oscar, you are awfully defensive considering your only contribution to this thread was to post something you admit was a stupid joke. So my reaction was not out of line. As far as my supposedly refuting everything else anyone says, that's a gross exaggeration and shows how colored your view of my posts is. The reality is that I agreed with one person and disagreed with another. Scroll up and see for yourself :) As far as disagreeing, am I not allowed to have my own opinion? Charles, thanks for your reply, it was pretty mellow. As we just witnessed, it's rare to find anybody on a forum who doesn't start to get hostile with anybody not seeing things their way, or to find anybody who doesn't react with suspicion and start hollering "troll" when they see anyone giving a thumbs-up to a company. So, I appreciated reading both your replies as they were civil and not paranoid. I agree that lots of people are interested in shallow DOF, and that fewer people are into 24 fps. It's my opinion that shallow DOF creates a bigger change as far as the layperson is concerned, when talking about interlaced video on a 4:3 television. And I agree that 24 fps, especially progressively shot footage, makes a big difference. I just think my viewers, viewing the stuff I shoot, wouldn't notice it as much as shallow DOF. So given that clarification, I think we actually agree. My first movies with my untuned DOF device had my viewers saying "Wow, that looks like an old 8mm movie!" I don't know whether it was the grain or the fuzzy, vignetted image. :) But I am reasonably sure that if I had shot it in 24 fps without a DOF device, none of my viewers would have noticed anything better about it. I can understand you thinking I was one of the many who wonder why their footage wasn't magically transformed by simple lens improvement. And I can understand why you figured I was after film look: pretty much everyone else IS! But, I am willing to settle for what I get, because I need a camera that is very small so it's not obtrusive on vacation or at gatherings. Even a Sony VX2000/2100 is way too big for me. Speaking of compact size- Charles, the G35 is bigger than my device, at least for the time being. I made mine small enough to be compact, at the expense of image quality. If I were shooting movies or documentaries I would use whatever size device I needed to, though. What got me started was trying to capture a shot where I drew the viewer's attention from one family member to another. We were all sitting around a table, and because I couldn't "rack" another person into focus, it made for one long, less captivating shot without a nice flow to it. I started looking into it on the internet and found the mediachance site, and then James Hurd's, and I was off and running. Speaking of my setup, somebody in an earlier post said he felt tricked because I have a tiny camera and so on, as if that meant we couldn't be just as interested as those with big cameras. Are these 3-chip Panasonics the underclass or what? GS400's can shoot some really nice images. If you don't believe me look at Dan Diaconu's setup. Also I have seen nice shots from Rok, J. Provast, and others. Mandy, yes, I have an adapter as you will see in my previous posts. I came here looking to give and receive information on the subject. So I would be happy to email you a screen grab. It is really nothing to write home about. That is why I am still looking to compare notes with other people, as in my previous posts. Oh, to answer your other question, the pricing info I got on the G35 was from reading their forums. There are very few posts on there so you can read it all in just a few minutes. Again, if the G35 guys were such aggressive self-marketers to go as far as trolling, they would have at least put up some product pictures or some pricing on their site instead of just leaving it buried in their forums. But anyone who knows personalities knows the inventor type is good at sweat and persistence, and is not as good at self-promoting, politicking, etc. In business school it's taught that the old saw about "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" is untrue. Many examples are given of inferior products beating superior products in the marketplace, because the hardworking inventor personality typically has little taste for wearing the salesperson or marketing person hat, whereas the born salesperson/promoter usually doesn't care what they are selling; they just want to sell, sell, sell, and make money. That is why the stereotypes exist of the used car salesperson who makes good money, and of the broke, genius inventor who hated bothering with sales stuff like promoting or buying advertisements or dealing with the public. I hope I either spurred some people into continuing development on their own devices ("look at what can be done!"), or to investigate buying the G35, as I think it has earned a look. If that's too much for anyone, I can go back to lurking and leeching info without sharing! ;-) Thanks for reading! BP :)

May 9th, 2005, 08:53 AM	#19
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Bill, I'm not defensive at all. I agree with Chris Hurd that one should give new people the benefit of the doubt. But surely new people who don't know 'old' people sense of humor should give them the benefit of the doubt too. So I didn't like you taking my post as an insult. I found it humorous that someone who presents himself as an amateur with a tiny camera starts to promote a product like a pro. And I still find it humorous that someone with a tiny camera starts to debate the difference with a pro or semi-pro 24p camera. You can disagree with everything you want, no problem, I just find the context funny, but this has come out as a weird discussion.

May 9th, 2005, 09:26 AM	#20
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	No need to defend yourself! We believe you. I'm excited by the prospect of using real lenses, too. I love manual f-stops and everything. I feel like I'm in control on a much more direct level. One thing. Super 8 has a very DEEP depth of focus; similar to a 1/3'' CCD. (My 8mm camera uses an f1.2 lens and 8mm is a little bigger so inbetwen a 1/3'' and a 1/2'' CCD DOF maybe, but close to 1/3''.) It was probably the graininess that made your footage look like super 8, and also the fact that it's easy to shoot super 8 out of focus by accident. The flare effect of mini-35 devices does seem to give an organic softness and grainines (which, to be honest, I don't want since I can replicate it in post but I can't gain extra resolution in post.) Also, super 8 is often shot at 16-18fps I believe so it should be ultra-studdery. Nonetheless, I'm impressed you got a mini35 style adapter working on your own (I have no idea how I'd get one working well) and it probably creates a really cool looking effect.

May 9th, 2005, 10:55 AM	#22
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Thanks, Matthew. That is the most interesting post I have read so far on this topic. I have never used an 8mm film camera, only an oooooold Sony camcorder, so I was not aware of those things. Now that you point out about the super deep DOF and very slow frame rate of Super 8, I guess it must have been the out of focus and the grain that my viewers were referring to. Don't be too impressed. My adapter is not mini35 style. It is a static adapter. Spacers, GG, macro, and epoxy. Since I use it as a travel camera, and I shoot so much tape during my outings, I thought a static one would be more appropriate (less weight, more compact, no batteries). Oscar, <<I'm not defensive at all.>> I rest my case! :)

May 9th, 2005, 08:08 PM	#24
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Hear hear! You sound like a pretty exemplary moderator. Terrific, keep up the good work. The world could use more of you, that's for sure. Thanks! BP :)