Not to stir anything up between the various 35 mm adaptors that are out there but I would like to see what the merits are of each choice, the Letus 35, the Redrock Micro, and any other brands that are out there. I'm not too knowledgeable about this field yet, but I'd like to learn more by purchasing one of these.

Optimally, i'd like a kit that would work with either a z1 or a xlh1. What would be the best option to pick guys? PS, i have a set of nikor's highest end set of SLR lenses, so i'm really itching to find a adaptor that'll let me use the most out of these lenses/cameras/setups. Thank you!

My answer is the Brevis made by Cinevate.

-Creates incredibly beautiful images (Demos & clips speak for themselves http://www.cinevate.com/website/index.php/demo/ )
-Modular & Upgradable (striving for perfection)
-Artistic versatility (choose image diffusers like paint from an artist's palette)
-Sleek and good looking design (its beautiful to look at http://www.cinevate.com/website/brevisdemo/ click on Launch 3Dview)
-Minimal light loss (industry leader)
-Micro Collimation of your lenses (great new feature)
-Did I mention how incredible the imagery is? (Wow!)

Any Questions?-ask'em right here http://cinevate.com/phpBB2/

I have the Letus35a. I also have a spinning adapter, self built.

Thus far, I give slight edge to spinning adapter for image, with the new Cinevate and Letus flip editions, and some of the images I have seen coming out of them, I think that has changed.

Having not used either, just based on what I have learned I give Cinevate the nod in finish and style, but I think Quyen's new Letus Extreme will give the best value and will rival any 35mm adapter image.

Yes the Letus extreme looks impressive too. But I believe in the not too distant future, Camcorder Manufacturers will have flip option features built in to the more popular camcorders. This would mean that any adapter sporting a flip at that point in time may shed it (unless that adapter is not modular in design, and it is a permanent fixture on that adapter)

To me that is like having a tv antenna permanenty fixed to your house as we now have moved to cable and/or satellite tv. Modular is good because as the improvements come and go, you can just add/remove those sections and always be the latest and greatest. This is another thing I liked about the Brevis.

Wow, lotta props for Brevis/Cinevate! I was actually leaning towards that more myself but its great to see that you guys like their products as well. THanks for the info!

Yes the Letus extreme looks impressive too. But I believe in the not too distant future, Camcorder Manufacturers will have flip option features built in to the more popular camcorders. This would mean that any adapter sporting a flip at that point in time may shed it (unless that adapter is not modular in design, and it is a permanent fixture on that adapter)

To me that is like having a tv antenna permanenty fixed to your house as we now have moved to cable and/or satellite tv. Modular is good because as the improvements come and go, you can just add/remove those sections and always be the latest and greatest. This is another thing I liked about the Brevis.

OK but that would mean buying a new camcorder with the flip feature, wouldn't it? Same as your TV example you'd have to change cable providers accept it's not as expensive as purchasing a camcorder compared to a 300$ flip solution or just owning a flip at that already, counting on something to be made in the future is kind of an overkill when things need to get done today. I owned a Brevis and it is a very awesome adapter, light loss is fantastically unnoticeable and very ergonomically satisfying to look at, Would be a good choice I like the Extreme as well nice design so it's really up to you in the end, just pick one a go with it they're both awesome. Good luck.

Dimitry, this is exactly why cinevate has a flip module that can be removed from the unit. This gives the shooter great flexibility with camera choices down the line. It also means that if you're shooting run n gun shoulder mounted with an external 7" monitor (rotated 180), you can remove the flip module for a significant weight savings. We were earlier quoting light savings by removing the flip, but the loss is so small that it's not significant (in the 1/4 stop range).

OK but that would mean buying a new camcorder with the flip feature, wouldn't it? Same as your TV example you'd have to change cable providers accept it's not as expensive as purchasing a camcorder compared to a 300$ flip solution or just owning a flip at that already, counting on something to be made in the future is kind of an overkill when things need to get done today. I owned a Brevis and it is a very awesome adapter, light loss is fantastically unnoticeable and very ergonomically satisfying to look at, Would be a good choice I like the Extreme as well nice design so it's really up to you in the end, just pick one a go with it they're both awesome. Good luck.

Dmitry, Flip is Hip.....but you don't have to change anything you don't want to. I just invert my images while shooting with my monitor and then in post. Get a Cinevate Flip module and be happy with your current camcorder. Years from now if you ever upgrade to a newer Godda-Have-it Whiz-Bang Camcorder that has this feature, get it and then lose the flip module instead of carrying the extra bulk. If you had a adapter with the flip integrated as one solid unit, you cannot do that. ie: The TV antenna is part of the building's structure and not to be removed because you can't. I was proud of my TV analogy and you ruined it.

P.S. The add/remove flip capability of an adapter is the last reason I would choose it over another, modular or not. I just think it is nice to be able to do that and adds more versatility. :)

I'd agree with that, sorry for runing you favoritest analogy hehe :)

I haven't had the privilege (yet) of using any of adapters, but just from an audiences stand point the Brevis appears to have the best cost/benefit ratio. It's very well price, offers great features and build quality and the end result, which is the most important, seems to be the best quality. I go to their sites forums every day looking for new sample footage cause I just want to imagine what I'll be able to produce when I can finally have my own. It's an amazing piece of equipment, so you can take that for what it's worth coming from me.

I am pretty confused (well, very confused) about adaptors. I have a number of Canon EF lenses including a 70-200 F2.8.

What is the best adaptor to use for these on the H1, is there a choice or does one just use the Canon EF/Xl adaptor?
If there is a choice what would you reccomend and why.

Thanks.

I am pretty confused (well, very confused) about adaptors. I have a number of Canon EF lenses including a 70-200 F2.8.

What is the best adaptor to use for these on the H1, is there a choice or does one just use the Canon EF/Xl adaptor?
If there is a choice what would you reccomend and why.

Thanks.

I have the XLH1 also, and have opted for the Letus option. Do a search, there are plenty of opinions posted on the various adaptors.

I just wanted to let you know that the Canon adaptor does not compare. It does not create the 35mm DOF control you are looking for, and - critically - maginfies the focal length many times over (7.2x from memory), so a 50mm prime lens becomes something >350mm.

So Spike, did you manage to settle on any of the adapters? Where has your quest of research led you?

Spike, which high-end Nikkor lenses do you have? Because most of the new lenses are the G-Type - which means there's no aperture ring on the lens itself, which in turn mean that you can't use them on any of the 35mm adapters

ok a few questions, can one use a Canon EOS lens on an adapter? there is no aperture ring on the EOS line lenses so does that mean it can be used but only wide open? and if so can you use the cameras iris to control light coming in and always have the wide open iris and shallowest depth of field? Which may make me go another route.

Next what is the real final cost of one of these units with say a normal setup less lenses, a rail setup, flip unit, and follow focus which I assume is very useful?

Which seems the best value? for use on a XHA1 and maybe a hv20 or hg10? Light loss is critical so the letus economy flips and is 1/2 stop and the brevis is also good on light but no flip yet? How much will the flip unit be? Any other options for less that are comparable to 1/2 stop of light loss and flip the image?

Which lenses are most useful? I am thinking a 28, 50 and 100mm and maybe a 135mm?

I am not sure the exact equivalent field of view, since 35mm still lenses are based on a 24x36mm frame that should differ from the field of view on 35mm cameras, are they real more like aps or 14x24mm since they go the other way on the film? so what exactly does that mean does it mean that a 50mm on a 35mm film still body is the same in the height as the 35mm motion camera is in width? or very close given the slight audio track off to the side of the film?

Anyway to figure this out easily so I can get a feel for what is really needed in lenses if I get an adapter?

And how much more work is using one in the real world? You will always need someone to work the focus and that is critical? do you need a HD monitor even if its no bigger than a 7inch? or will a lower price monitor like this http://varizoom.com/products/monitors/vztft7.html be OK?

I stand by the Brevis, until another manufacturer comes up with a switchable diffuser screen option.

I stand by the Brevis, until another manufacturer comes up with a switchable diffuser screen option.
Ditto.

Cinevate has come up with at least 6 different imaging elements in the last year... each addresses different cameras, specific looks, low light, wide lenses, etc. If you can afford fast lenses, you can typically stop down to f8 and not see grain (at least, that's the case with my HVX200). The modular approach will also be very convenient when the Cinevate flip adapter is released.

I think the Brevis is the best adapter for tweakers who like to customize and change their setup.

I would like to see Dennis try a smoky filter (one which does not actually) degrade sharpness) in front of his achromatic dioptre. Forgive "smoky". I don't know the correct name.

ARRI apparently made one such for film work which replicates the effect of pre-fogging film for low light, high contrast environments. Sort of works like black stretch if my understanding is correct.

Currently a few people I know use actual smoke but if one does not want the actual whirls and drifts as an atmospheric effect, then it has to be stirred up into the air well and maintaining the density, shot-for-shot is an imprecise dark art. Probably does not do the airways much good long term either.

I stand by the Brevis, until another manufacturer comes up with a switchable diffuser screen option.
What other manufacturer is planning on making changable/switchable diffusers? I haven't heard about that.

I would like to see Dennis try a smoky filter (one which does not actually) degrade sharpness) in front of his achromatic dioptre. Forgive "smoky". I don't know the correct name.

ARRI apparently made one such for film work which replicates the effect of pre-fogging film for low light, high contrast environments. Sort of works like black stretch if my understanding is correct.

Currently a few people I know use actual smoke but if one does not want the actual whirls and drifts as an atmospheric effect, then it has to be stirred up into the air well and maintaining the density, shot-for-shot is an imprecise dark art. Probably does not do the airways much good long term either.

You're talking about a low-contrast filter. I posted some footage with the Brevis and a 5 power Tiffen low contrast filter a while back, I apologize as I do not remember the URL nor am I in a situation to search for it. It looked good but needs a bunch of levels adjustment in post.

What other manufacturer is planning on making changable/switchable diffusers? I haven't heard about that.
Exactly. That's why I'm with the Brevis until another manufacturer comes along and offers the same option. Not even the Mini35 does that; frankly I think P+S has been completely outpaced and all the footage I've seen with their equipment has been subpar in terms of image quality (compared to a lot of the options available now). The only reasons this hasn't been brought up much is because all shoots that have been done with it are high budget and have higher res cams and a real lighting budget--how can you badmouth footage like that?

Actually, you can swap out the diffusion screen on a P+S and the method is even published on an internal service document for PRO35 operators for using the PRO35 in aerial image mode.

However, it is a hassle and P+S do not encourage the practice becuse of the likelyhood of introducing airbourne contaminants to the optics.

My comment is also a little academic in that P+S Technik do not offer alternative screens.

I am not sure why they went with their particular design except that it is as compact as can be practically achieved around a diffuser which will confer the standard motion picture frame which the P+S remains faithful to. The three-point motion anchoring they use is tight around the groundglass and its supporting rims so there is not a lot of wriggleroom to add area such as by using a rectangular frame without out a major redesign and tooling up for it

Their design also uses a round groundglass in a moving frame. Again I do not know why except that their engineering facilty (or outsourced component suppliers if applicable) may operate equipment for making lenses and the metal collars, rims etc., for them.

Against the parameter of the standard movie frame, you may find other adaptors, not all, may develop issues relating to sharpness.

Sorry, I have a few questions:)

Is there any way to compare the dof adapters objectively? Or is there a problem with matching with the camera that could produce different results depending on the model? Is there an ideal specification for each adapter? I mean the imaging parameters and requirements.

For what it is worth, here is a link to a test chart I shot on a JVC GY-HD100/Mini35 whilst setting backfocus for the owner last year. The taking lens was a Nikon f1.8 85mm.

Lighting source was natural summer daylight 2pm and I shot it slightly over which is not a fair test.

The "B" block of the Lemac chart represents 864 TV lines or better resolution.

The "G" block represents 486 TV lines or better of vertical resolution.


http://www.filefactory.com/file/df690e/

The file is a .bmp so may take a while to come back down the drain.

FOOTNOTE: If you can get the wretched thing to download "AND" display, you are a better man than I Gungadin. There is a bit of a convoluted thing you have to do to download. Just click on the green buttons on each page. Download and save and look at the .bmp file separately and it should work.

You're talking about a low-contrast filter. I posted some footage with the Brevis and a 5 power Tiffen low contrast filter a while back, I apologize as I do not remember the URL nor am I in a situation to search for it. It looked good but needs a bunch of levels adjustment in post.



We manufacture our Schneider Low Con filter that is very effective at reducing contrast and creating the desired effect. The issue with most Low Con filters (except ours) is that they lower resolution and create flares in highlights. The water white Schott glass we use tests to over 300 line pairs per millimeter and doesn't flair highlights like similar competitive filters. Check it out if you want to go this route.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1155&IID=4081

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Ryan.

Out of curiosity, has Century or Schneider contemplated doing a prosumer "back of lens" anamorphic for Nikon and Canon.

There's an up and coming young director over here who crops everything shot on the Mini35/JVC GY-HD100 to a cinemascope frame and it looks good. He also uses the "lost" image top and bottom to enable corrections to composition in post by panning and scanning vertically to reframe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoT_Q-7bM6o

My imagining is that there would be potentially a slight resolution gain if an anamorphic adaptor was used because the groundglass grain and diffusion softness would itself become optically compressed in the vertical plane.

This is the one significant area of resolution loss in interlace to progressive conversion and such a gadget might make a few interlaced shooters happy. The progessive horse might also have bolted by the time an R&D effort delivers a viable product into the market.

Trying to squeeze ultra-wide stills lenses would probably be a nightmare but the less extreme range 28mm to 85mm might work.

Just a thought.

Kind words here gentlemen...thanks.

Ryan, I get a kick out the phrase, "doesn't flare highlights" :-) It's something we've worked very hard on as I couldn't stand halation on specular highlights during focus racks. Nice to see someone else out there feels the same.

Bob, we feel that there's so much room for development yet in the adapter imaging area, that our R&D efforts will continue to push the envelope in that area first. The Brevis system in "flip" mode is a major step forward for the system's optical performance, but the R&D program is still churning forward in the area of our imaging elements. Until it looks "exactly" like film, the program will not cease..and making sure existing users can take advantage will remain priority.

Has no one mentioned the redrock? I don't have one but was planing on buying one in a few days actually, no one like that then? i too would be using an eos lens on my canon a1.

Dennis

Here's a cheeky suggestion which might get me in trouble with Tino at pstechnik.de --- but --- maybe --- offer a retrofit kit of all your alternative diffuser grades for the Mini35, of course with the disclaimer, owner accepts all risks. - just joking.

If there is ever a MINI35-500, no prizes for guessing what options may be included, maybe swappable GG, maybe larger area GG.

The Mini35 "Compact" is a hint that alternative adaptors are drawing P+S into a competitive form of defence as a response in turn, to camcorder manufacturers providing the in-camera flip options which suit the non-flip alternative adaptors.

P+S have apparently done a lot of R&D to arrive at what they have determined as the optimum groundglass grade for their application of the principle.

What I am looking forward to beside all this is the latest itteration of the "smart filter", being R&Dd right here in W.A. They moved away from a pass-through to a reflective process due to some technical issues which the reflective model solves.

I hope they resume R&D on the pass-through method as this could be implemented into a moving groundglass system pretty much as they have it developed if the filter was made 24mm x 18mm and became part of the moving component. Up to 12 stops of latitude, wouldn't you love it? -- and the horses may be wished for by this beggar too.

Regards for the New Year.

Ryan.

Out of curiosity, has Century or Schneider contemplated doing a prosumer "back of lens" anamorphic for Nikon and Canon.

There's an up and coming young director over here who crops everything shot on the Mini35/JVC GY-HD100 to a cinemascope frame and it looks good. He also uses the "lost" image top and bottom to enable corrections to composition in post by panning and scanning vertically to reframe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoT_Q-7bM6o

My imagining is that there would be potentially a slight resolution gain if an anamorphic adaptor was used because the groundglass grain and diffusion softness would itself become optically compressed in the vertical plane.

This is the one significant area of resolution loss in interlace to progressive conversion and such a gadget might make a few interlaced shooters happy. The progessive horse might also have bolted by the time an R&D effort delivers a viable product into the market.

Trying to squeeze ultra-wide stills lenses would probably be a nightmare but the less extreme range 28mm to 85mm might work.

Just a thought.

Thanks for the input. I shot this over to my engineers just for the fun of it. Let's see what they say.

Ryan Avery
Schneider Optics

Ryan.

Something I forgot in my speculations about a "back of lens" anamorphic is the variety of of groundglass frame areas different adaptors use, some go for 24mm x 18mm, the motion picture frame, others aquire off the 35mm x 24mm still image frame and others anywhere in between.

The larger format adaptors tend to add optical elements such as condensers, usually plano-convex though there is a bi-convex example out there. This is to deal with brightness falloff issues discussed below.

A condenser between the SLR lens and groundglass is obviously going to introduce an uncontrollable complication. I think most including the P+S Technik products go straight from SLR lens to groundglass via a dust shield. The Movietubes however place a plano-convex element each side of the groundglass which in their case, is a wax layer directly between the two plane surfaces of the plano-convex elements.

With larger than 24mm x 18mm, issues begin to emerge related to the angle of incidence of light from the objective lens which translates to brightness falloff towards the extremities of the image. It becomes a real problem with wide angle lenses. At this end of the range, the available apertures tend to be narrower than the ideal f1.8.

It is an issue your R&D people would need to be aware of, which is more popularly referred to here as "hotspot" or "vignetting".

I've tried the "traditional" Century 16:9 on front of a 28mm and 50mm. There was bit of an apparent resolution and contrast loss. On some of the older SLR lenses, the whole of the front barrel rotates in focussing, which is why I raised the "back of lens" method.

If this actually begins to go somewhere, P+S Technik might be able to help with data on angles of incidence relating to groundglasses.

Hopefully I have not sent you off on an expensive goosechase.

That's why I'm with the Brevis until another manufacturer comes along and offers the same option. Not even the Mini35 does that; frankly I think P+S has been completely outpaced and all the footage I've seen with their equipment has been subpar in terms of image quality (compared to a lot of the options available now). The only reasons this hasn't been brought up much is because all shoots that have been done with it are high budget and have higher res cams and a real lighting budget--how can you badmouth footage like that?

I think that this is so true Ben. I would love to see true & unbiased comparisons between the P+S Mini35 and some of these other affordable adapters. Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous respect for the Mini35 but the Brevis and others have now risen the bar in versatility and maybe even image quality. Maybe this is because these newer adapter developers work so closely with the users of their products and use that feedback for R&D in real time.