vx2100+letus35 music video WIP

Marcus Marchesseault · November 11th, 2005, 12:45 AM

Your 28 is one f-stop higher than your 50? Does that make your lenses an f1.8 50mm and an f2.8 28mm? I have an f1.4 50mm and an f2.0 28mm on the way. The 28 was twice the cost of the 50mm lens and is more than half an f-stop slower. I tried to bid on a decent 24mm, but those are going way over $200 or even $300. Oh, I chose the Nikon mount for my in-transit Letus35A (with large GG mod).

Okay, it's officially unfair for a band to have music that can't be played by a human being! I actually did lol at that one. You know, I kinda like the mundane look of the video as it is. It looks like the music sounds, simple 60s-influenced rock. Of course, video of a pretty girl probably wouldn't hurt.

I thought of a cheap way to add diffusion to a light. I use fluorescent lights and some battery-powered spots, so don't try this on a hot light. I used a white plastic grocery bag inflated over a harsh light and it softened it perfectly.

Bouncing a light depends a lot on the room itself. It makes a light much more diffuse and less powerful from any one direction. It is a great way to bring up the light level overall, and if it is done from one side of your subject it can also act as an accent light. I would still use some direct lights to highlight the subject, but with the bounced light as the fill, you could then get away with less power in their faces to bring out the detail. Remember that video has a very narrow exposure range, so we can't have a severe ratio between highlights and shadow. I think the lighting I liked the best was of the keyboard player's hands and the up-angle shot of the bass player. Those shots look great. You know, this kind of lighting is exactly what DIDN'T work before 35mm adapters were available. I am dying with anticipation!

Okay, let me do some math (not my best subject). Without an anamorphic adapter, you used a 720x480 camera in 16:9 mode which is about 75% of the full 4:3 pixels. Then, you cropped down to 2.35:1 in post which is about 75% of 16:9 resolution. This should equal something like 56% of the full 480 lines of resolution, in the neighborhood of 270 lines by 720 horizontal. Still, it looks good! Amazing.

Is that wedding video in Hawaii? I'm in Honolulu and the wedding party looks local. I also do weddings sometimes, and now I know what to expect. Thanks for the clip. Do you think a polarizer would take away too much to shoot with that lens in fairly strong daylight assuming I'm not adverse to using a bit of gain?

Mahalo (thanks) again!

A.J. Briones · November 11th, 2005, 02:06 AM

yes, it's a 50mm at 1.8 and 28mm at 2.8. i just lost out on a bid on a 24 for just about $300. insane.

the wedding footage was actually shot here in san diego, ca. the bridal party was filipino, so that's probably why you think it was shot in hawaii. ;-P

yeah, i was worried about the resolution as well, but i really wanted to use a 2.35:1 aspect ratio and i figured that if it didn't work, i'll just keep it at 16:9. planning for an fx1 or hd100 early next year, which should make things even more interesting.

with regards to the polarizing filter, i'm not sure. i strongly suggest that you take a lot of test shoots and take your letus35 apart and clean it thoroughly. for the first few uses, some metal/plastic filings will loosen up and will get in your gg/optics. there are other threads here about cleaning tips and quyen is awesome about giving you advice as well. lastly, unless you are using a flippable monitor or hacking your lcd to flip the image, shooting upside-down will take a lot of getting used to.

Marcus Marchesseault · November 11th, 2005, 02:48 AM

Well, I feel confident that my f2.0 28mm will do the job considering your f2.8 was overwhelmed by a 500w light. I suspected that it would be a good idea to wait for fast wide lenses in order to get shallow. I figure that I can get shallow DOF with the onboard lens if I want to go extreme telephoto, but the adapter will be the only thing that can handle wide. I like a slightly-wide shot, but I think the 28 is more than enough for me. I also ordered a 35mm length lens at an impressive f1.4 for less than $150. I think it may actually be the length I prefer the most as it should be similar to my current WA adapter that I cherish. From your images, 28mm should be just fine for my wide shots. I'm not even sure 28 or 24mm lenses come in f1.4.

Don't forget that the FX1 and almost any other 1/3"ccd camera is about 3 f-stops slower than the VX2000. You may be forced to bleed the cash necessary for fast lenses, or at least get used to fl 50mm which is easier to find. A friend has an FX1, but it won't power-up and is in the shop. I will do tests as soon as it gets back in who-knows how many weeks.

Marcus Marchesseault · November 11th, 2005, 02:55 AM

Oh, I forgot to mention that I have q-tips, rubbing alcohol, lens paper, and two cans of compressed air at the ready. I did not order the anodizing in case it was contributing to the grit problem.

BTW, I figured out why dust is such an issue with these adapters. Imagine the consequences of getting dust on your CCDs or film! That is exactly what is happening if dust gets on the ground glass or screen. A bit of dust in an area that is not in focus isn't such a big deal. Dust on the imaging screen in perfect focus IS a big deal. I'll bet camera manufacturers will eventually begin making these adapters with a the lens necessary to focus on them (relay lens?) as part of the camcorder. The benefits of a large imaging screen are just too significant. Until then, we will need to do a lot of housekeeping. Heck, I suspect that my 35mm adapter is going to live on my camera so that should help keep outside particles down a bit...

Bill Porter · November 11th, 2005, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

I'll bet camera manufacturers will eventually begin making these adapters with a the lens necessary to focus on them (relay lens?) as part of the camcorder. The benefits of a large imaging screen are just too significant.

I considered this but my money is not on camera manufacturers making these at all, rather on their moving to large CCD's or CMOS. No need for a screen/GG when you have a 36x24mm sensor! :P

Bill Porter · November 11th, 2005, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

I'm not even sure 28 or 24mm lenses come in f1.4.

Off the top of my head, there's a Nikon Nikkor 28mm F1.4 and a Canon 24mm F1.4. Sigma makes a 30mm F1.4 and a 20mm F1.8 (!). So yes, they're out there! :)

Leo Mandy · November 11th, 2005, 06:55 AM

IS Sigma the one with the FD mount?

Bill Porter · November 11th, 2005, 03:58 PM

Sigma makes their lenses in many different mounts. So usually you can buy a given lens with either a Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, or Sigma mount.

http://sigma-photo.com/

Be careful, the DC's and the newest versions (under a different acronym) give a very small image circle as they're intended for digital cameras with small sensors. If you use these lenses for a whatever35 device you'll think something is wrong and creating lots of vignetting. But it's just the lens doing its intended job.

Alex Raskin · November 14th, 2005, 02:31 PM

Hi AJ, great video!

I kinda galloped through this thread, so forgive me if I missed it - but what host did you use Magic Bullet with?

I have AE 6.0 Win XP, and Magic Bullet consistently gives me "unknown error 512" after processing maybe 90 frames.

Have you had any problems like that?

A.J. Briones · November 14th, 2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Raskin

Hi AJ, great video!

I kinda galloped through this thread, so forgive me if I missed it - but what host did you use Magic Bullet with?

I have AE 6.0 Win XP, and Magic Bullet consistently gives me "unknown error 512" after processing maybe 90 frames.

Have you had any problems like that?

hi alex. i'm using magic bullet editors v.1 with final cut 5 on a mac. no problems with it so far (crossing fingers).

November 14th, 2005, 02:31 PM	#24
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Magic Bullet Hi AJ, great video! I kinda galloped through this thread, so forgive me if I missed it - but what host did you use Magic Bullet with? I have AE 6.0 Win XP, and Magic Bullet consistently gives me "unknown error 512" after processing maybe 90 frames. Have you had any problems like that?

November 11th, 2005, 12:45 AM	#16
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	Your 28 is one f-stop higher than your 50? Does that make your lenses an f1.8 50mm and an f2.8 28mm? I have an f1.4 50mm and an f2.0 28mm on the way. The 28 was twice the cost of the 50mm lens and is more than half an f-stop slower. I tried to bid on a decent 24mm, but those are going way over $200 or even $300. Oh, I chose the Nikon mount for my in-transit Letus35A (with large GG mod). Okay, it's officially unfair for a band to have music that can't be played by a human being! I actually did lol at that one. You know, I kinda like the mundane look of the video as it is. It looks like the music sounds, simple 60s-influenced rock. Of course, video of a pretty girl probably wouldn't hurt. I thought of a cheap way to add diffusion to a light. I use fluorescent lights and some battery-powered spots, so don't try this on a hot light. I used a white plastic grocery bag inflated over a harsh light and it softened it perfectly. Bouncing a light depends a lot on the room itself. It makes a light much more diffuse and less powerful from any one direction. It is a great way to bring up the light level overall, and if it is done from one side of your subject it can also act as an accent light. I would still use some direct lights to highlight the subject, but with the bounced light as the fill, you could then get away with less power in their faces to bring out the detail. Remember that video has a very narrow exposure range, so we can't have a severe ratio between highlights and shadow. I think the lighting I liked the best was of the keyboard player's hands and the up-angle shot of the bass player. Those shots look great. You know, this kind of lighting is exactly what DIDN'T work before 35mm adapters were available. I am dying with anticipation! Okay, let me do some math (not my best subject). Without an anamorphic adapter, you used a 720x480 camera in 16:9 mode which is about 75% of the full 4:3 pixels. Then, you cropped down to 2.35:1 in post which is about 75% of 16:9 resolution. This should equal something like 56% of the full 480 lines of resolution, in the neighborhood of 270 lines by 720 horizontal. Still, it looks good! Amazing. Is that wedding video in Hawaii? I'm in Honolulu and the wedding party looks local. I also do weddings sometimes, and now I know what to expect. Thanks for the clip. Do you think a polarizer would take away too much to shoot with that lens in fairly strong daylight assuming I'm not adverse to using a bit of gain? Mahalo (thanks) again!

November 11th, 2005, 02:06 AM	#17
A.J. Briones Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 275	yes, it's a 50mm at 1.8 and 28mm at 2.8. i just lost out on a bid on a 24 for just about $300. insane. the wedding footage was actually shot here in san diego, ca. the bridal party was filipino, so that's probably why you think it was shot in hawaii. ;-P yeah, i was worried about the resolution as well, but i really wanted to use a 2.35:1 aspect ratio and i figured that if it didn't work, i'll just keep it at 16:9. planning for an fx1 or hd100 early next year, which should make things even more interesting. with regards to the polarizing filter, i'm not sure. i strongly suggest that you take a lot of test shoots and take your letus35 apart and clean it thoroughly. for the first few uses, some metal/plastic filings will loosen up and will get in your gg/optics. there are other threads here about cleaning tips and quyen is awesome about giving you advice as well. lastly, unless you are using a flippable monitor or hacking your lcd to flip the image, shooting upside-down will take a lot of getting used to.

November 11th, 2005, 02:48 AM	#18
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	Well, I feel confident that my f2.0 28mm will do the job considering your f2.8 was overwhelmed by a 500w light. I suspected that it would be a good idea to wait for fast wide lenses in order to get shallow. I figure that I can get shallow DOF with the onboard lens if I want to go extreme telephoto, but the adapter will be the only thing that can handle wide. I like a slightly-wide shot, but I think the 28 is more than enough for me. I also ordered a 35mm length lens at an impressive f1.4 for less than $150. I think it may actually be the length I prefer the most as it should be similar to my current WA adapter that I cherish. From your images, 28mm should be just fine for my wide shots. I'm not even sure 28 or 24mm lenses come in f1.4. Don't forget that the FX1 and almost any other 1/3"ccd camera is about 3 f-stops slower than the VX2000. You may be forced to bleed the cash necessary for fast lenses, or at least get used to fl 50mm which is easier to find. A friend has an FX1, but it won't power-up and is in the shop. I will do tests as soon as it gets back in who-knows how many weeks.

November 11th, 2005, 02:55 AM	#19
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	Oh, I forgot to mention that I have q-tips, rubbing alcohol, lens paper, and two cans of compressed air at the ready. I did not order the anodizing in case it was contributing to the grit problem. BTW, I figured out why dust is such an issue with these adapters. Imagine the consequences of getting dust on your CCDs or film! That is exactly what is happening if dust gets on the ground glass or screen. A bit of dust in an area that is not in focus isn't such a big deal. Dust on the imaging screen in perfect focus IS a big deal. I'll bet camera manufacturers will eventually begin making these adapters with a the lens necessary to focus on them (relay lens?) as part of the camcorder. The benefits of a large imaging screen are just too significant. Until then, we will need to do a lot of housekeeping. Heck, I suspect that my 35mm adapter is going to live on my camera so that should help keep outside particles down a bit...

November 11th, 2005, 06:55 AM	#22
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	IS Sigma the one with the FD mount?

November 11th, 2005, 03:58 PM	#23
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Sigma makes their lenses in many different mounts. So usually you can buy a given lens with either a Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, or Sigma mount. http://sigma-photo.com/ Be careful, the DC's and the newest versions (under a different acronym) give a very small image circle as they're intended for digital cameras with small sensors. If you use these lenses for a whatever35 device you'll think something is wrong and creating lots of vignetting. But it's just the lens doing its intended job.