Brevis35

Dennis Wood · August 13th, 2006, 01:57 AM

Here are some quick shots using the first in our collection of optional GG release candidates. Swapping from the standard diffuser element to this one using our interchangeable system takes less then 5 minutes...and there are no setup changes. This GG setup takes us much closer to a film match from f1 to f2.8 where the standard diffuser is a very good match from f2.8/4 to f16. The shots are all done using a 50mm f1.4 using the GS400 in pro-cinema mode...nothing done in post except the flip and some slow mo.

Fast Link

Slow Link

Yasser Kassana · August 13th, 2006, 05:24 AM

What kind of gg is this? Is it better material?

Dennis Wood · August 13th, 2006, 07:36 AM

Not better, just different. Early in testing it became obvious (and more so now) that every shooter has different expectations with respect to bokeh. Just as directors of photography choose primes and apertures for a specific look using film, it was obvious that some choice in the diffuser would offer similar options. I've done extensive testing comparing actual film bokeh taken with a 35mm SLR to the adapter footage. This is the first result.

Jim OQuinn · August 13th, 2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

Here are some quick shots using the first in our collection of optional GG release candidates. Swapping from the standard diffuser element to this one using our interchangeable system takes less then 5 minutes...and there are no setup changes. This GG setup takes us much closer to a film match from f1 to f2.8 where the standard diffuser is a very good match from f2.8/4 to f16. The shots are all done using a 50mm f1.4 using the GS400 in pro-cinema mode...nothing done in post except the flip and some slow mo.

Fast Link

Slow Link

You know, about 4 months ago (right after I got my letus35a) I kicked about the idea of controlling the look of your footage through different GGs. Something like the RMS ratings on film. You want a dark gritty look use ground glass A. You want a sharp clear picture use ground glass B.

Personally I think this a real solid idea. I'm already sold on the combination of HD and a 35mm adapter, but with the ablity to have additional control over the look is pretty friggin nice.

Plus, I fully expect rapid advances in the GG and can't justify buying a whole new adapter just to get a better GG.

Wayne Kinney · August 13th, 2006, 11:07 AM

I agree this is a good idea. Its been something I have wanted to implement into the SGpro for a long time, but due to the nature of its design, it has been difficult to make it user changeable.

I think you have done a great job, Dennis. What are the main optical differences between the 2 GG's? Level of diffusion/diffusion angle??

Michael Maier · August 13th, 2006, 02:03 PM

It looks very soft, maybe because the GS400, but I'm pretty sure I have seen sharper footage from the brevis. The bokeh looks nice. I wonder if it isn't possible to get both, a sharp image and a nice bokeh together.

Dennis Wood · August 13th, 2006, 04:07 PM

Jim, I'm not sure there will be tremendous advances in GG's simply because physics gets in the way of a diffuser trying to be film :-) The fact that the diffusers can be swapped out though makes good sense in a number of ways and certainly opens up other GG options.

Wayne, the option could be visually quantified as providing more diffusion.

Michael, the interesting thing about your comment is that some folks think the footage is sharp, some think it's soft, and some think it's a bit noisy. The noise is the GS400, however the other two criteria are pretty subjective, particularly as I've provided no baseline reference. It is true though that because the DOF is shallower, less of the frame is actually in focus. Having alternatives makes sure that the ultimate authority, the shooter, get's to choose their look :-) What I'm pretty excited about is that when compared to my extensive test shoots with the standard diffuser, this stuff looks just as sharp. The penalty is another .5 stops of light loss.

I have invested a great deal in some pretty cool stuff, so this is just the start with respect to diffuser options. Now if I could just recover costs on the failed trials...

Thanks for your feedback gentlemen.

Mikko Parttimaa · August 13th, 2006, 04:39 PM

Soft? Noisy? I wonder if they also complained about the small amount of gg seen in the left edge of the picture? I found the footage as sharp as it should be and the new GG seemed to perform great also. It's amazing how fast these adapters are developing.

Dennis Wood · August 13th, 2006, 07:19 PM

Yep, there's some GG there. It would be nice if the LCD/viewfinder didn't have the overscan issue. I get caught all the time by this. Thanks for your feedback Mikko.

Michael Maier · August 14th, 2006, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

Michael, the interesting thing about your comment is that some folks think the footage is sharp, some think it's soft, and some think it's a bit noisy. The noise is the GS400, however the other two criteria are pretty subjective, particularly as I've provided no baseline reference.

I'm comparing it to SD footage from the Mini35 and Movietube and also SGPro and M2. Now none of them were with a camera as low end as a GS400 I have to admit. That may be the difference. They were mainly DVX, XL or PD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

It is true though that because the DOF is shallower, less of the frame is actually in focus.

I was, naturally, talking about the parts that are in focus. They look soft to my eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

Having alternatives makes sure that the ultimate authority, the shooter, get's to choose their look :-)

Yes, this is a great idea and a great feature you are offering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

What I'm pretty excited about is that when compared to my extensive test shoots with the standard diffuser, this stuff looks just as sharp. The penalty is another .5 stops of light loss.

0.5 loss is nothing if the bokeh is better, but I really can’t see it being as sharp as the older tests. Maybe it’s just me.

Martin Biskup · August 14th, 2006, 07:43 AM

sorry but its really sharper than previous tests, you have something with eyes :))

Dennis Wood · August 14th, 2006, 09:37 AM

When I get some time, I'll post up comparative footage to end that debate :-) With camera differences, camera aperture, backfocus accuracy, achromat type, 35mm lens and aperture used, GG used, and 35mm lens focus accuracy, there are way too many variables that potentially will make even my own footage suspect. I really need to post up the comparisons (film, bare cam, stock and optional diffusers) under very controlled conditions, with uncompressed DV, to allow folks to judge the relative differences.

Steve Witt · August 16th, 2006, 02:32 AM

Could someone please explain what "bokeh" is. Thanks

Theodoros Chliapas · August 16th, 2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Witt

Could someone please explain what "bokeh" is. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Steve Witt · August 16th, 2006, 08:06 AM

Thankyou Theo, I had no Idea such a word existed until I kept reading and seeing it on here.

August 13th, 2006, 01:57 AM	#1
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	Brevis35 - Optional GG Footage Here are some quick shots using the first in our collection of optional GG release candidates. Swapping from the standard diffuser element to this one using our interchangeable system takes less then 5 minutes...and there are no setup changes. This GG setup takes us much closer to a film match from f1 to f2.8 where the standard diffuser is a very good match from f2.8/4 to f16. The shots are all done using a 50mm f1.4 using the GS400 in pro-cinema mode...nothing done in post except the flip and some slow mo. Fast Link Slow Link

August 13th, 2006, 11:07 AM	#5
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	I agree this is a good idea. Its been something I have wanted to implement into the SGpro for a long time, but due to the nature of its design, it has been difficult to make it user changeable. I think you have done a great job, Dennis. What are the main optical differences between the 2 GG's? Level of diffusion/diffusion angle?? __________________ Thanks, Wayne.

August 14th, 2006, 07:43 AM	#11
Martin Biskup Tourist Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: slovakia Posts: 2	hmm sorry but its really sharper than previous tests, you have something with eyes :))

August 13th, 2006, 05:24 AM	#2
Yasser Kassana Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: UK Posts: 223	What kind of gg is this? Is it better material?

August 13th, 2006, 07:36 AM	#3
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	Not better, just different. Early in testing it became obvious (and more so now) that every shooter has different expectations with respect to bokeh. Just as directors of photography choose primes and apertures for a specific look using film, it was obvious that some choice in the diffuser would offer similar options. I've done extensive testing comparing actual film bokeh taken with a 35mm SLR to the adapter footage. This is the first result.

August 13th, 2006, 02:03 PM	#6
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	It looks very soft, maybe because the GS400, but I'm pretty sure I have seen sharper footage from the brevis. The bokeh looks nice. I wonder if it isn't possible to get both, a sharp image and a nice bokeh together.

August 13th, 2006, 04:07 PM	#7
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	Jim, I'm not sure there will be tremendous advances in GG's simply because physics gets in the way of a diffuser trying to be film :-) The fact that the diffusers can be swapped out though makes good sense in a number of ways and certainly opens up other GG options. Wayne, the option could be visually quantified as providing more diffusion. Michael, the interesting thing about your comment is that some folks think the footage is sharp, some think it's soft, and some think it's a bit noisy. The noise is the GS400, however the other two criteria are pretty subjective, particularly as I've provided no baseline reference. It is true though that because the DOF is shallower, less of the frame is actually in focus. Having alternatives makes sure that the ultimate authority, the shooter, get's to choose their look :-) What I'm pretty excited about is that when compared to my extensive test shoots with the standard diffuser, this stuff looks just as sharp. The penalty is another .5 stops of light loss. I have invested a great deal in some pretty cool stuff, so this is just the start with respect to diffuser options. Now if I could just recover costs on the failed trials... Thanks for your feedback gentlemen.

August 13th, 2006, 04:39 PM	#8
Mikko Parttimaa Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 45	Soft? Noisy? I wonder if they also complained about the small amount of gg seen in the left edge of the picture? I found the footage as sharp as it should be and the new GG seemed to perform great also. It's amazing how fast these adapters are developing.

August 13th, 2006, 07:19 PM	#9
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	Yep, there's some GG there. It would be nice if the LCD/viewfinder didn't have the overscan issue. I get caught all the time by this. Thanks for your feedback Mikko.

August 14th, 2006, 09:37 AM	#12
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	When I get some time, I'll post up comparative footage to end that debate :-) With camera differences, camera aperture, backfocus accuracy, achromat type, 35mm lens and aperture used, GG used, and 35mm lens focus accuracy, there are way too many variables that potentially will make even my own footage suspect. I really need to post up the comparisons (film, bare cam, stock and optional diffusers) under very controlled conditions, with uncompressed DV, to allow folks to judge the relative differences.

August 16th, 2006, 02:32 AM	#13
Steve Witt Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: kentucky, USA Posts: 429	Could someone please explain what "bokeh" is. Thanks

August 16th, 2006, 08:06 AM	#15
Steve Witt Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: kentucky, USA Posts: 429	Thankyou Theo, I had no Idea such a word existed until I kept reading and seeing it on here.