Trailer shot with G35... at DVinfo.net

Matthew Wauhkonen · July 19th, 2006, 10:16 AM

Check it out:

http://homepage.mac.com/mwauhkonen/amt.mov

Any questions? Ask away.

Ben Winter · July 19th, 2006, 10:28 AM

I will hand it to the G35 crew, their stuff always does look pretty good.

Bill Porter · July 19th, 2006, 11:29 AM

Very nice looking, Matt.

Camera settings?

Matthew Wauhkonen · July 19th, 2006, 03:30 PM

My scene file settings were basically everything set at zero, cinegamma, normal matrix, and master ped between -3 and -5. I always adjust things a lot in post afterward shooting, though.

No one asked about the G35 beta but I'll give some insight that may or may not be widely-known: it's really only usable at f1.4 or f2.0 (even then with some grain) and the difference between it and other adapters out there (I'm pretty sure it uses wax) is mainly a very nice quality macro lens that seems to be pretty sharp, although there's a bit of a resolution loss nonetheless.

Alex Thames · July 19th, 2006, 09:43 PM

Lol. That has got to be the worst audio and acting I've seen, but the DOF is spectacular.

Bill Porter · July 20th, 2006, 06:44 AM

Matt, I think what you say about it only being usable at F1.4 or F2.0 is dependant on the 35mm lens, big time.

Jaadgy Akanni · July 20th, 2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

Matt, I think what you say about it only being usable at F1.4 or F2.0 is dependant on the 35mm lens, big time.

I think the horrible acting is part of the "shtick" So, in that sense it's brilliant...funny shiznit, I love it.

Matthew Wauhkonen · July 20th, 2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

Matt, I think what you say about it only being usable at F1.4 or F2.0 is dependant on the 35mm lens, big time.

To some extent. I'm talking static grain, primarly, and not vignetting or light loss, though.

I've used 28mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 100mm f2.5, and 80-200mm f2.8 lenses on it. In fact, all but the 100mm were used at some point during the trailer. Any time I stopped down below f2.0 I got enough grain to make camera movement distracting.

And, yeah, it's meant to be cheesy but it may even be a little stupider than I initially intended.

Amos Kim · July 20th, 2006, 12:25 PM

what cam did you use?

Bill Porter · July 20th, 2006, 03:08 PM

Interesting, since while there are huge differences in quality of different make/model 28mm F2.8 lenses, I haven't heard of a crappy 50mm F1.4. So, if that lens created grain by stopping down, that must have been an early G35 beta unit. There's lots of recent static G35 footage shot at F2.8, F4.0, etc, with no grain.

Matthew Wauhkonen · July 20th, 2006, 03:33 PM

I only use Nikon lenses (except the zoom, which is a Tokina since I can't afford the Nikon.)

I've found that the relationship between f-stop and grain is pretty much the same on all my lenses, as is the light transmission. I guess they are all pretty good. It's serial number 15; I don't know what that means, though. And, yes, it's quite easy to make a wax screen with less grain than the one that is in the G35, although the one that's in it is very very nice otherwise.

July 19th, 2006, 10:16 AM	#1
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	Trailer shot with G35... Check it out: http://homepage.mac.com/mwauhkonen/amt.mov Any questions? Ask away.

July 19th, 2006, 10:28 AM	#2
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	I will hand it to the G35 crew, their stuff always does look pretty good. __________________ BenWinter.com

July 19th, 2006, 11:29 AM	#3
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Very nice looking, Matt. Camera settings?

July 19th, 2006, 03:30 PM	#4
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	My scene file settings were basically everything set at zero, cinegamma, normal matrix, and master ped between -3 and -5. I always adjust things a lot in post afterward shooting, though. No one asked about the G35 beta but I'll give some insight that may or may not be widely-known: it's really only usable at f1.4 or f2.0 (even then with some grain) and the difference between it and other adapters out there (I'm pretty sure it uses wax) is mainly a very nice quality macro lens that seems to be pretty sharp, although there's a bit of a resolution loss nonetheless.

July 19th, 2006, 09:43 PM	#5
Alex Thames Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York Posts: 508	Lol. That has got to be the worst audio and acting I've seen, but the DOF is spectacular.

July 20th, 2006, 06:44 AM	#6
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Matt, I think what you say about it only being usable at F1.4 or F2.0 is dependant on the 35mm lens, big time.

July 20th, 2006, 12:25 PM	#9
Amos Kim Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 335	what cam did you use?

July 20th, 2006, 03:08 PM	#10
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Interesting, since while there are huge differences in quality of different make/model 28mm F2.8 lenses, I haven't heard of a crappy 50mm F1.4. So, if that lens created grain by stopping down, that must have been an early G35 beta unit. There's lots of recent static G35 footage shot at F2.8, F4.0, etc, with no grain.

July 20th, 2006, 03:33 PM	#11
Matthew Wauhkonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 285	I only use Nikon lenses (except the zoom, which is a Tokina since I can't afford the Nikon.) I've found that the relationship between f-stop and grain is pretty much the same on all my lenses, as is the light transmission. I guess they are all pretty good. It's serial number 15; I don't know what that means, though. And, yes, it's quite easy to make a wax screen with less grain than the one that is in the G35, although the one that's in it is very very nice otherwise.