Phil -

We also appreciate the efforts you have done. It would have been great to be there in person as well to help with the setup, but unfortunately we aren't neighbors :) I have sent you some email that I think your tests don't reflect the capabilities of the M2. Perhaps we chat offline and give you a few setup pointers

Thanks

Brian

Phil - any chance in posting a full resolution sample of one of your stills? Mainly to see the full screen quality of the HVX with an adapter.

Cheers.

Post edited 7:05pm EST

Actually Phil if you do end up going back to try the CF3 can you grab a still without any 35mm adapter, just a still through the HXV itself?

The review is on my website.

I will do a clean shot on the hvx for comparison. In fact I won't wait until I get the new diffuser I will knock it off in the next couple of days. I will also stick up some hi res stills. How can I do it on this forum...iweb won't let me.

Brian, I think the test was pretty fairish, sure Wayne being there helped things a bit for his adaptor, but with his hard mount edge to edge sharpness would never be an issue.

You have to look at it as a standing start test. A camera and three adaptors starting from scratch. Set up times are an important factor. I clearly pointed out time and again that with more time and if I had set it up in front of a large monitor the edge to edge sharpness would have been better, but I am pretty positive about the M2 in my review. In fact as soon as I can I will get that hard mount sorted for my z1 and never take it off it. I just need to know that if I HAVE to take it off I can...Wayne's hard mount is very well designed making it easy to take the camera on and off

Philip

full rez files here

brevis, m2 then sgpro

interestingly the brevis is slightly warmer. I hadnt noticed it properly before...Dennis why would that be (I dont particulary care as if it was too warm as I would just balance accordingly)?

Hi Phil

I'm not sure to what you are referring re: hard mount, etc. I think I understand that you are saying you used the hardmount with some adapters and not the M2? That would provide some explanation. The M2 performs much better than your samples suggest, but tell you what. Rather than coming across like "yeah but" :) , I do commend you on the shootout, and perhaps we can work with you to better showcase what the M2 and other redrock gear is capable of.

From what I read in the review and understand the M2 uses a rubber boot to go from the camera lens over the tube of the M2. Therefore not being a "hard mount".

Is this correct?


By the way I honestly find the images from all the adapters to be acceptable in terms of image quality. I think the major differences may only be in the setup time, battery changing time, battery hours, light loss/gain, etc.. Likely however with more time for tweaking each adapter can produce exceptional results.

Hi Dennis

The M2 can be used in either configuration - the "soft mount" (as it's been called) allows it to be fitted to just about any camera out there. The "hard mount" is for some of the more mainstream cameras to lock down the connection.

This is always the challenge with shootouts - what's the criteria to be used? image quality for sure, which is really what I was commenting on. There are other things to consider - quality of build translates to important considerations such as longevity on the set, ability to handle large lenses, etc. The M2 has the unique ability to stop down to f16 or more without showing grain. That wasn't something covered in the shootout, nor did I think Phil intended his work to be comprehensive (I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so please feel free to correct me Phil).

Cheers

Brian

Just to chime in...

I own the M2 and I adapted an external battery 9v holder to the unit so battery change time is next to nothing (and the motor still spins at the same speed).

I do look forward to a hard mount (I have the Z1U and the V1U; I plan on using the V1U with the M2). I plan on leaving the M2 attached at all times, and definitely a hard mount will help in keeping the camera/M2 aligned.

I've been pretty close at getting edge to edge sharpness, and I'm pretty pleased with the image. I still have a way to go to get 'perfection', but I'm still happy (and I always get the 'wow' factor when people see the footage).

Todd

Phil, jeeps, this thread has over 10 000 hits! I suspect the difference in colour temp has to do with the coated optics in the unit. Every single optical surface in/on the unit is coated. While it would be nice (and a lot cheaper) to remove the fore/aft shield optics, I think most would agree that keeping the interior of the unit free of dust/debris is good trade-off. Paul Nordin just finished a shoot and posted up pics of the HVX/Brevis car mounted (on the outside of a truck) in Mexico. Dusty!

Hi Guys

This shootout wasn't supposed to be comprehensive. If it was I would have done a scientific comparison between them. It was just a chance for these three adaptors to be in the same place at the same time for the first time and quick test between them all.

I did mention fast shutter speed being a breeze for the m2 and sgpro. I will also add that to the text and mention about how far it can stop down.

I should have realised I was creating a rod for my own back with this but I really do hope that it helps people understand the differences between the three...

A very fair an honest review, Phil, thanks for your efforts.

While on the subject of stopping down the 35mm lens aperture, this clip shows the SGpro with HVX200 with the lens stopped down to F22 in the first shot and F16 for the rest, which might be of interested:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=83783

I agree the M2 could have produced better images with a little more setup time, but as phil said we were pushed for time. As brain said, the M2 also has an optional hard mount.

I will point out a few important features of the SGpro that seem unique and not mentioned in the shootout:

Fully interchangeable lens mounts (12 available including PL and OCT-19):
Easy to swap from one mount to another via 3 small screws from the front of the box, takes about 30 seconds. The difference in register is machined into the mounts, so no GG adjustment is needed.

The SGpro support system:
Fully adjustable up/down/left/right with included shims. There is also a seperate tripod clamp the slides independently along the rods to allow you to balance the rig on the tripod.

External battery pack for easy access:
2AA external battery pack makes it easy to change batteries on set. a set of batteries will last over 8 hours.

Thanks again Phil for your time in writing this up, from the amount of page views it looks like it has helped alot of people.

[QUOTE=Phil Bloom]I have got much better images with my Brevis at other times, same with the M2. Wayne has a great adaptor and by having him there did give his SGPro an advantage over the others. A really fair comparison would be to get all the makers together with three identical cameras shooting the same scene side by side, this of course is probably never going to happen.


Thanks for the review Phil. I think a really fair comparison would be to have no manufacturer attend a shoot out. Now that probably could happen.

Because let's face it in the real world of shooting we never have the man from arri or sony standing next to us.

I really do love what these guys are trying to do. But are they still just DIY projects being produced on a larger scale?

I'm also wondering what kind of insurance policy any of the adaptors carry for mechanical failure during shooting? What guarantee do these things come with?

This is not supposed to be rude or confrontational or down on anyone I'm just asking questions.

Wayne

I've sent you a PM


Ta


Andrew

wao! just over a night, this thread has grown for another two pages!! So much to catch up...

Using the same lens f-stop you would use a ND4 (also known as .6) to stop down by exactly 2 stops and get the approximate same exposure level.

Thank you Dennis, my concern is, even with ND .9, you will still get plenty of over-exposure. A test carried out by Richard a while ago, he applied .3 + .9 ND in a outdoor test, see how much over-exposure with Brevis adapter: http://www.richard-darge.com/m2brevis.htm.

I made a screengrabs below for direct comparison, please see the attachment (see the len aperture has already close down to f4).

And I wonder if I use the Mattebox, can I add multiple ND filters all together into the filter slot ? And if I add two .9 ND, will it make the image look unnature ? I don't want to cover up the exposure in the expense of darken up people faces too... (front objects).

I am particular concerning about the over-exposure because shooting video in Malaysia especially wedding, 80% of the activity carries out at the daytime with at least 40% at outdoor. Even in the indoor situation, most of the houses here have big shinny windows & doors, thus back-lighting happens most of the time regardless indoor or outdoor.

Good ND filters are not cheap but I won't mind as long as the quality remain nature and applicable.

======================

And for all, I believe we all agree that Phil has done a very good review by posting out images from various adapters for side-by-side comparison, and I find his comments honest and really useful.

It is not comprehensive and he didn't plan to do it so too, just a day out shooting with many nights of struggling to share his thoughts to us yet no one in the world can do this so far.

And his reviews have gained so much attention and inputs from users with their own adapter preference, I would hope to see more screengrab or footage to support your point of preference.

Perhaps Chris can help to summarise everything just like the wish-list we made for improving XH-A1 :-).

Really appreciated.

**(attachment in next page.. i forgot to attach it here) **

Sorry, forgot the attachment...

Ing, you can always stop down the 35mm lens to reduce exposure outside. You can stack ND filters in the mattebox, but my standard config outdoors is usually an ND .6 and a polarizer which takes another stop off. When shooting weddings, you'll find it much easier to shoot with the resulting deeper DOF by stopping the 35mm lens down to the f4 to f8 area. This makes focus less critical. A graduated filter is also great for outdoor shots with bright sky in them as they can be set up to reduce exposure above the horizon, less below.

It's only when shooting outside, in good light, with a fast lens wide open (to achieve the shallowest DOF) that you need to worry about ND filters. The CF2 and CF3 elements will lose a bit more light and thus less would be required in terms of ND. I am of the belief that once CF3 footage starts circulating, you'll see it used a lot both inside and outside :-)

Thank you Dennis, my concern is, even with ND .9, you will still get plenty of over-exposure. A test carried out by Richard a while ago, he applied .3 + .9 ND in a outdoor test, see how much over-exposure with Brevis adapter: http://www.richard-darge.com/m2brevis.htm.

I made a screengrabs below for direct comparison, please see the attachment (see the len aperture has already close down to f4).

Wow Ing, that's crazy? It suggests that that the Brevis is need of slightly over 3 stops of reduction to produce the same image "levels" of the M2 since .9 is 3 stops of loss!!!!

Were Richard and Phil using the same CF during their tests? This could be one logicial explanation that explains a difference of a stop or two.

It just goes to show how much higher of an effective camera ASA is possible with the Brevis adapter compared to the other adapters. Brevis should change it's name to "NightVision".

Ing, you can always stop down the 35mm lens to reduce exposure outside. You can stack ND filters in the mattebox, but my standard config outdoors is usually an ND .6 and a polarizer which takes another stop off. When shooting weddings, you'll find it much easier to shoot with the resulting deeper DOF by stopping the 35mm lens down to the f4 to f8 area. This makes focus less critical. A graduated filter is also great for outdoor shots with bright sky in them as they can be set up to reduce exposure above the horizon, less below.


Thank you Dennis, but I wonder an ND .6 + polarizer sufficient to stop the over-exposure ? Richard tried .3 + .9 and still over exposure significantly.

And how many ND filters can I stack in the mattebox ?

And if I stop down f4 to f8, would it make any better if I just use the native camera len to do the work since the DOF is probably similar, am I right or Nikon 50mm f8 will still have much shorten DOF then the original len of XH-A1 at 50mm f5.6(estimated) with ND on ?


It's only when shooting outside, in good light, with a fast lens wide open (to achieve the shallowest DOF) that you need to worry about ND filters. The CF2 and CF3 elements will lose a bit more light and thus less would be required in terms of ND. I am of the belief that once CF3 footage starts circulating, you'll see it used a lot both inside and outside :-)

Yes, all my faith is on CF3 now and I still waiting for more sample footage from your website, anytime you will be free to take a day shooting outside ? Thanks in advanced.

Wow Ing, that's crazy? It suggests that that the Brevis is need of slightly over 3 stops of reduction to produce the same image "levels" of the M2 since .9 is 3 stops of loss!!!!

No, Richard took .3 + .9 which is effectively 4 stops and still significantly over-exposured everywhere (without M2 picture, you can't even realise the building at the background is not white in reality).


Were Richard and Phil using the same CF during their tests? This could be one logicial explanation that explains a difference of a stop or two.


I am not sure which CF Richard used, most likely the CF1 since the test was made quite a while already.


It just goes to show how much higher of an effective camera ASA is possible with the Brevis adapter compared to the other adapters. Brevis should change it's name to "NightVision".

Or call it BlindMe@@Brevis.. ha ha..

I really think the Brevis design is the most flexible. It's the quickest to setup. You can change GG. You can change mounts. You can shoot w/o rails. You can use the beefy rails mount for heavier lenses. If the new CF3 delivers, I bet the Brevis will be the crowd's favorite adapter for shallow DOF.

From what I've seen so far, the SGpro currently has the best bokeh (though this test doesn't showcase it). And you can stop it way down for deep DOF, even though the primary use for a DOF adapter is to get shallow DOF. This could mean less post-prod. than if you're trying to match bare-camera, wide shots to SGpro footage. But you're going to need a lot of light, so no deep DOF w/SGpro in low light situations.

The M2 is built like a tank... and it's the size of a tank. It also has the smallest frame. Time for a revision?


I'd like to know is how these three affordable adapters stack up against the expensive mini35, Movietube, and upcoming Zacuto.

Sam, for months of reading articles & comments around the internet I would personally say that, people who uses mini35 and M2 before prefers M2 for it's very close-match image quality and good value for money. people who uses M2 & Brevis (like Phil) love both of them but in favour of Brevis for it versatile and flexibility. At this moment no users own SGPro with other adaptor at the same time, but in general SGPro produces very good nature looking color & sharpness where only Brevis can compete with, M2 can achieve the same good result but need slightly more tuning effort.

Movietube is a real tank, if you have the budget for such luxury equipment, go to get one and please don't forget to share us your experience. No sample footage can be found about Movietube shootout but in general, users love it's stunning build and integration to camera.

And for Zacuto, perhaps you will have to wait until end of June (if you can wait), too little to tell about this adapter at this moment, and for the price of over 10k.... too big for my pocket but it could still an attractive price since it includes couple of great prime lens.

Dennis the first CF3 units only went out last week..so both Richard's and Phil's review were done with CF1. There are a few CF2 units out there, but none of these users have reviewed with them.

I'll admit that when I saw the first (production version) CF3 clips from the A1 2 weeks ago, I was pretty excited :-)

ING, if required, you could bump shutter speed to drop exposure a stop, drop gain etc. to bring it down a bit. Our mattebox allows 2 filters in the rotating stage. F4 or F8 will still give you far shallower DOF than the same setup using the straight camera, so in my mind, a very usefull way to shoot. In some of my stabilized footage I've used a 28mm lens, stopped to F4 or so, to provide more flexibility with the focus plane.

With regards to the field of view being wider...the m2 wasnt that well set up and we zoomed in a bit more than the others as we could see the motor a little. With more time we could have got it a bit wider. The brevis is zoomed in the correct amount to get past the vibrating GG edges and the SGPro actually needed to be zoomed in a bit more as there was a bit of vignetting. But it still is a bit wider, best if Wayne could answer that! Wayne?

Phil, I answered my own question in regards to this rather interesting find!

If in fact a 36x24mm frame is being used in these adapters (as previously stated by Brevis and SGPro) then they are inaccurately reproducing the "exact angle of view" of a 35mm lens used with 35mm film and in effect decreasing the focal length of the lens being used. Depending who you ask this could be a very good or very bad thing.

Regular 35mm film is actually 34.8mm wide and once you factor in the film perforations there is maybe 25mm to 26mm left in width to record an image. The academy ratio for 35mm motion picture film has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1 22mm x 16mm (or 0.866" X 0.630"). A rough calculation reveals that if you setup your video camera to record a full 36x24mm frame on your GG you effectively put the focal length of your 35mm lens out by as much as a 1.5 factor! ie. A 50mm lens becomes a 33mm lens, a 35mm lens becomes a 23mm lens.

What's even more interesting is that such use of a large frame size (NOTE: 63% more than the academy ratio!) would dramatically minimize and reduce GG grain patterns because the relative size of the grain to the CCD is also decreased. (Hence my title "which adapter is cheating?")

I'm also now wondering if zooming out past the academy standard frame size doesn't explain why there is such varying success with edge to edge sharpness since you are approaching the edges of the lens.

A real good follow up test for all these adapters would be to set the zoom on the HVX to fill an exact 24x18mm frame on the GG for each adapter and then go out and shoot some footage at various shutter speeds start and analyze some frame grabs in RAW format for grain pattern.

I wonder how the adapters would do in such a test, or even if it would be possible to get that close to the GG with the acromats provided for each adapter while at the same time not introducing distortions or other lens aberrations.

On one final note if the M2 is using a smaller frame size (ie. 24x18) then it may very well be the only "lower-end" 35mm adapter "accurately" reproducing the exact angle of view as you would find shooting on a 35mm motion picture camera!

I've measured my PS Technik mini35 frame size and it is most definitely compliant with the academy format set by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences with a GG diameter of approx 22mm.

Phil, I answered my own question in regards to this rather interesting find!

If in fact a 36x24mm frame is being used in these adapters (as previously stated by Brevis and SGPro) then they are inaccurately reproducing the "exact angle of view" of a 35mm lens used with 35mm film and in effect decreasing the focal length of the lens being used. Depending who you ask this could be a very good or very bad thing.

Regular 35mm film is actually 34.8mm wide and once you factor in the film perforations there is maybe 25mm to 26mm left in width to record an image. The academy ratio for 35mm motion picture film has an aspect ratio of 1.37:1 22mm x 16mm (or 0.866" X 0.630"). A rough calculation reveals that if you setup your video camera to record a full 36x24mm frame on your GG you effectively put the focal length of your 35mm lens out by as much as a 1.5 factor! ie. A 50mm lens becomes a 33mm lens, a 35mm lens becomes a 23mm lens.

What's even more interesting is that such use of a large frame size (NOTE: 63% more than the academy ratio!) would dramatically minimize and reduce GG grain patterns because the relative size of the grain to the CCD is also decreased. (Hence my title "which adapter is cheating?")

I'm also now wondering if zooming out past the academy standard frame size doesn't explain why there is such varying success with edge to edge sharpness since you are approaching the edges of the lens.

A real good follow up test for all these adapters would be to set the zoom on the HVX to fill an exact 24x18mm frame on the GG for each adapter and then go out and shoot some footage at various shutter speeds start and analyze some frame grabs in RAW format for grain pattern.

I wonder how the adapters would do in such a test, or even if it would be possible to get that close to the GG with the acromats provided for each adapter while at the same time not introducing distortions or other lens aberrations.

On one final note if the M2 is using a smaller frame size (ie. 24x18) then it may very well be the only "lower-end" 35mm adapter "accurately" reproducing the exact angle of view as you would find shooting on a 35mm motion picture camera!

I've measured my PS Technik mini35 frame size and it is most definitely compliant with the academy format set by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences with a GG diameter of approx 22mm.

This isn't big news; people have discussed it for years. Since most people are using SLR lenses, the frame size is correct. For PL-mount lenses, it wouldn't work.

The larger frame size offers a host of benefits: less light loss (zoom in the dvx lens less), shallower DoF availible, more reframing ability (you can always zoom in a bit if you want), etc. etc.

Dennis, most people are using 35mm SLR lenses with their adapters. These lenses are not meant for Academy format film... they're meant to be used with STILL photo film. You cannot motion picture prime lens target frame size to 35mm SLR target frame size. And who cares about perfectly matching FOV... these adapters are for shallow DOF - and they do that pretty good. So, I suppose if you're using Academy format lenses on the Brevis or SGpro, then you'll merely have to zoom in a bit more than with the M2.

Matthew beat me to the punch! hehe

So, I suppose if you're using Academy format lenses on the Brevis or SGpro, then you'll merely have to zoom in a bit more than with the M2.

Great - so let's see the image quality of the GG once a 24x18mm frame is used incase I want to use ARRI PL's with any one of these adapters, and also how easily the adapters can target an academy frame size.

I'll admit that when I saw the first (production version) CF3 clips from the A1 2 weeks ago, I was pretty excited :-)

Dennis, any chance you can share some outdoor footage with CF3 soon ? I don't mean just some nature scene but some typical outdoor video shooting where you have couple of people in front (let's say 2 or 3 people) of the camera under the sun or bright light.

ING, if required, you could bump shutter speed to drop exposure a stop, drop gain etc. to bring it down a bit.

Does a stop enough to prevent over-exposure ? Based on what Richard tested before, it seems like Brevis is more then 6 stops sensitive then M2 (okay I know my measurement of 'stop' is not correct but Richard couldn't make any Brevis shot with proper exposure in his outdoor test, I don't know how to figure this out). It would be best if you can show some good outdoor footage from your website (without CC or any filmic).

Our mattebox allows 2 filters in the rotating stage.

So the maximun ND I can do is .9 + .9... are they been used often ? and how would it look like ?


F4 or F8 will still give you far shallower DOF than the same setup using the straight camera.

This is nice tips, thanks for sharing :-).

After all, why Brevis is so sensitive to bright light ? is it bcs of the shorten adapter or the use of special GG ? I wonder is it possible to make flexible length of the adapter so that I can make Brevis less sensitive to the light (sound so stupid since everyone wants more light but I want to reduce it ha haa) ? or with interchangeable GG that I can swap to a much ND-built-in GG to prevent over-exposure ? am I stupid here ?

Yes I think I am...

as soon as I get the cf3 from Dennis I will do a mini comparison page of the same scene shot with cf1, cf2 and cf2 (and without any adaptor). Would be interesting to see the results to compare.

i also feel obliged to spend some more time getting my m2 set up on my z1 and doing a couple of simple shots to show what it is capable of once it is properly set up.

am I stupid here ?

Yes I think I am...

I don't think so, ING. I think it's possible there MAY be an issue with the Brevis (and CF1) not having as high a dynamic range as the other two adaptors. I don't really know for sure, but it seems to me that one of the shots with the boat and with the chart that the blacks are all exposed equally but the mid to high tones get washed away just a bit more with the Brevis and how this test was conducted. Hopefully CF3 will be able to handle more dynamic range (hold onto the highlights as well as the darks tones) or you may have to use a low contrast filter such as a Schneider Digicon filter: http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=431&IID=2326

I haven't used this or heard anything about it. Though there is a test conducted here: http://www.cinematography.net/digicon-test.htm It seems to introduce a bit of grain so I'd use a 1 or 1/2 instead of 2. It may help and you might want to try it with any video you shoot to get more range in high contrast areas. In low contrast areas such as indoors with proper lighting you shouldn't have any problem.

I grabbed the chart pics and did a little roll-over image to compare the two in terms of sharpness and range. It's here: http://www.terpstar.com/test/Brevis-SGproTest/

I still think it's still a bit over-exposed but it may indicate something to do with how they handle highlights differently. The black square is the same value for both but the Brevis shoots up in values throughout the rest of the image. -Nice for low-light, but in high-contrast it might suffer. We'll just have to see how it fares with CF3 to know what the Brevis is ultimately capable of.

By the way I honestly find the images from all the adapters to be acceptable in terms of image quality. I think the major differences may only be in the setup time, battery changing time, battery hours, light loss/gain, etc.. Likely however with more time for tweaking each adapter can produce exceptional results.

Wow, so many new posts surfaced in this thread this morning. It's really tough for a slow reader like me.

Just a question for Dennis. How would you compare the images from these three adapters to the ones from your P+S?

This is really good footage of the SGPro and HVX200. I like to see Brevis + HVX as sharp as this.

http://www.sgpro.co.uk/thanar-theodoroschliapas.mov

Just a question for Dennis. How would you compare the images from these three adapters to the ones from your P+S?

It's really too bad Phil couldn't get his hands on a mini35 for this shootout as well just to see! (Boy Phil looks like you have a new part time job. Better leave town quick!)

It's extremely difficult to base any judgement on only the three images taken by Phil. I can't tell you how many times I've watched a video shot with the M2 and said, "Wow - that's the alternative 35mm adapter to buy". Then watched something shot with the SGPro and said, "Wow - that's the alternative 35mm adapter to buy". Then seen some footage shot with the Brevis and said... well you get the point.

I honestly think the images from all three adapters are comparable to the mini35 with only subtle differences between each of them. It's also really hard to judge still images versus video since a still images will show things that may not be visable in moving video.

If I had to judge these images posted by Phil (trying to compare them to the results I've seen with the mini35) I really like the natural look and color rendition of the SGpro and M2 equally. They are of photographic quality in my opinion. The Brevis image has more color saturation which isn't a bad thing but the highlights are blown out while the rest of the image is properly exposed. Adding more ND filters or stopping down the 35mm lens would only make the rest of the image underexposed to preserve the levels in these hot spots. This suggests a limited dynamic range as indicated by Chad and maybe fixed by using an ultracon on the taking lens or trying a different CF from Cinevate. We need to see more tests and samples to know for sure what it is but so far we've also seen it in Richard's video linked here by Ing Poh Hii. I want to add however that you can not beat the low light capability of the Brevis as of yet.

On the SGpro image I noticed some blue color fringing on the flag poles on the right of the frame (see attached image). This artifacting does not appear on the M2 or Brevis images but to me seems like a kind of aberration near the top edges of the frame. You can also notice it very slightly on the left most lamp post on top of the bridge. Since it would appear that the SGPro was setup using a slightly wider frame size on the GG I wonder if this could be a contributing factor?

All three images have great detail at infinity. Check out the tiny blue boat past the 2nd bridge to the right of the bridge column! On the other hand for HD these images all look a little soft as they would with the mini35 or any 35mm adapter for that matter...

Bottom line though is don't judge a book by it's cover. With the right tool in the right hands many things can be accomplished! I'll post some stills I've taken with the mini35 so you can see if there's any major difference and if you do, if you think it's worth paying nearly 10 times the price of one these adapters Phil tested.

As indicated here are some mini35 frame grabs for reference:

...and a couple last few stills from my recent steadicam & mini35 shoot.

Comments please and also welcome - cheers!

:)

P+S rules for climbing in, turning the key and having the belief it wll start and take you where you want to go and fewer post-production hassles.

Each alternative adaptor type is going to have its own + and - attributes.

Beyond that and by far the most important factor is the human body which attaches itself to the camera/adaptor.

When I visited the shoot of "The Eleventh Soldier" recently I shot some footage of my own on the set and got taught a little lesson.

For some shadow shots I attempted to replicate the lens focal lengths, aperture choices and frame-ups of the DP. When it was not possible for me to shadow, I went off and got some other shots of my own.

The stuff which faithfully shadowed the DPs choices looked filmic and usable, which is of course why I shot it, - to learn. The other stuff mostly just looked like happy snaps with a bit of DOF thrown in.

The Mini35 is pitched at existing film-fluent camera ops to enable them to use their existing toolset of lenses in many cases. Thus it conforms to an industry standard, hence its reliability and predictability.

The crop of alternative adaptors is not bound by these rules. Provided the camera op does not want to reproduce the motion picture look as entirely as video permits, the other adaptors are each a valid tool.

Some have advantages and all have subtle difference which might suit individual operators.

It is like DPs choosing Kodak or Fuji for a given look or mood, or when Agfa was still around, using that stock for its own unique attibutes or maybe even mixing stocks on a single shoot.

What was that stuff the Russians were using - "Orwo?" I don't think anyone went after that as a deliberate creative choice. I seem to recall reading somewhere that they used Kodak stock when they could get it for shots they wanted to count and the local product for the mundane footage.

Beyond Kodak reversal film, I still think Agfa negative did outback Australian and African bush best. - Does anyone remember Kodak's 7252 low contrast reversal stock?

Ing, just curious, how do you shoot weddings using 35mm adapter?=D I'm your neighbour from Indonesia=D

Phil, regarding Dennis H's. above comments on the blue fringing...did you use the same 50mm on all three? Dennis, any time I need some footage critiqued, I know who to talk to...sharp eyes. CF1 is our preferred diffuser for light efficiency, but CF3 will be one most will compare (soon) to the other adapters, particularly outside.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachment.php?attachmentid=1977&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1170214446

Also, taking a closer look at the grabs, (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=615561&postcount=155) all the shots seem the same on the right side (two poles) but the Brevis grabs show more real estate on the left side (bridge railing). Were the units just swapped on the tripod?

unfortunately due to Wayne not having a Nikon mount he used a canon lens whilst the Brevis and M2 had the Zeiss Planar lenses.

The camera was on the tripod but of course had to be removed for each swap, but we tried to match it up as close as possible.

This is really good footage of the SGPro and HVX200. I like to see Brevis + HVX as sharp as this.

http://www.sgpro.co.uk/thanar-theodoroschliapas.mov

Yeah, the SGpro really seems to be the sharpest adapter. I remember some macro photography done with ambient light and the SGpro that looked razor sharp too.

I don't think so, ING. I think it's possible there MAY be an issue with the Brevis (and CF1) not having as high a dynamic range as the other two adaptors. I don't really know for sure, but it seems to me that one of the shots with the boat and with the chart that the blacks are all exposed equally but the mid to high tones get washed away just a bit more with the Brevis and how this test was conducted. Hopefully CF3 will be able to handle more dynamic range (hold onto the highlights as well as the darks tones) or you may have to use a low contrast filter such as a Schneider Digicon filter: http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=431&IID=2326


Hi Chad, Thank you very much for following-up the test of dynamic-range issue of Brevis (and CF1) and thanks for the suggestion of low contrast filter :-).

I thought it was only me having eyes-problem or just anti over-filmic effect. I have noticed too the blacks from all three adapters are mostly equal (anyone have photoshop to sample the RGB value of those black ?). I hope it was the CF1 to be blamed and the new CF3 can retain the mid to high (also mid to low) tones.

Phil, when you started your parttime job (testing adapters :p...), please can you test with the identical len aperture (F1.4~8) with & without ND. Shooting at the river bank is always challenging for cameras (in handling contrast), you may pick a much easier setup to test. **and please don't forget, I can be your useless assistant :) **


CF3 will be one most will compare (soon) to the other adapters, particularly outside.

Dennis, any chance you will post some outdoor footage (with some people in the scene) soon this week ? Many Thankss~


Ing, just curious, how do you shoot weddings using 35mm adapter?=D I'm your neighbour from Indonesia=D

Hi my dear neighbour Ian :D, nice to know you here :D. I haven't own a 35mm adapter yet but definitely I believe it will be as challenging and as rewarding to have it for videoing wedding ceremony (as I am tired to those deep DOF camera especially HDV which reveals everything clear and sharp).

I guess you are probably chinese too so you would know how "chaos" & rushing the typical chinese wedding is. Thus an adapter along can't do the job, I believe a FF is a must for such dynamic and live environment. Also I must have at least two cameras working on the field, one without 35mm adapter for usual shot, one with 35mm adapter for interest composition and special moments.

I would have to get one adapter and try it out before I can really comment how good I can apply it to wedding video. I will let you know when I got one :-).

I grabbed the chart pics and did a little roll-over image to compare the two in terms of sharpness and range. It's here: http://www.terpstar.com/test/Brevis-SGproTest/

I still think it's still a bit over-exposed but it may indicate something to do with how they handle highlights differently. The black square is the same value for both but the Brevis shoots up in values throughout the rest of the image. -Nice for low-light, but in high-contrast it might suffer. We'll just have to see how it fares with CF3 to know what the Brevis is ultimately capable of.

Chad what f-stop on the taking lens was being used? You will get best results (sharpness-wise) if stopping down on the lens a bit, say around f2.8 to f4. Great use of the "roll over" tool! That's really cool.

Hi Phil,

I think it will be very nice to see some footage of the Brevis with the new Cinefuse 3, to see how it handle the highlights and the dynamic range. I don't know if you already have one though.

I grabbed the chart pics and did a little roll-over image to compare the two in terms of sharpness and range. It's here: http://www.terpstar.com/test/Brevis-SGproTest/

I still think it's still a bit over-exposed but it may indicate something to do with how they handle highlights differently. The black square is the same value for both but the Brevis shoots up in values throughout the rest of the image. -Nice for low-light, but in high-contrast it might suffer. We'll just have to see how it fares with CF3 to know what the Brevis is ultimately capable of.

Oh Chad, I now understand what you try to test in this comparison, you have just done the RGB color sampling that I asked about in my previous reply. Thanks a lot for this, now I learn another way in reading resolution chart.. thankssss :D.

But sad news is, Brevis+CF1 does have less dynamic range... :<...

I have to put all my faith to CF3 now, Dennis, is it possible to buy Brevis with CF3 instead of CF1 ? And you haven't setup a bundle sales of Brevis + rod support + FF + mattebox in your e-commerce website yet... it would be good to know how much I can save if I purchase all in one go...

I ordered a 5 power low contrast filter, a .9 ND filter today and the CF3 a couple weeks ago to use with my Brevis, I'll offer up some outdoor footage with, without filters, different lenses...as soon as it arrives.

Hi Phil,

I think it will be very nice to see some footage of the Brevis with the new Cinefuse 3, to see how it handle the highlights and the dynamic range. I don't know if you already have one though.

Dennis Wood is sending me one. As soon as I do I will shoot the same scene with the three different CF screens

I have to put all my faith to CF3 now, Dennis, is it possible to buy Brevis with CF3 instead of CF1 ? And you haven't setup a bundle sales of Brevis + rod support + FF + mattebox in your e-commerce website yet... it would be good to know how much I can save if I purchase all in one go...

The way the CF screens work, correct me if I am wrong Dennis, is you always start with the standard CF1 then add either the CF2 or CF3 on top of it.

Trust me Ing, you WILL want the standard screen for inside and low light, especially if you want to do weddings with it. The CF3 has very lovely BOKEH from what I can see and a super shallow depth of field, fine for very set up shots and portraits type stuff but anything moving unpredicatably and you will find it a challenge to keep focus. It's good to use each screen for the right situation. I am lucky enough to have to Brevis adaptos. One with the standard diffuser and one with CF2, soon to be replaced by CF3. If you are serious about using just a 35mm adaptor you should consider a similar setup.

I ordered a 5 power low contrast filter, a .9 ND filter today and the CF3 a couple weeks ago to use with my Brevis, I'll offer up some outdoor footage with, without filters, different lenses...as soon as it arrives.

That's interesting that you say that because in doing so you would become my personal hero. Thanks! ;-)

Dennis Wood is sending me one. As soon as I do I will shoot the same scene with the three different CF screens

Do you ever rest? :p

Only at Christmas...that's about 333 days to go isn't it?!

The way the CF screens work, correct me if I am wrong Dennis, is you always start with the standard CF1 then add either the CF2 or CF3 on top of it.

Trust me Ing, you WILL want the standard screen for inside and low light, especially if you want to do weddings with it. The CF3 has very lovely BOKEH from what I can see and a super shallow depth of field, fine for very set up shots and portraits type stuff but anything moving unpredicatably and you will find it a challenge to keep focus. It's good to use each screen for the right situation. I am lucky enough to have to Brevis adaptos. One with the standard diffuser and one with CF2, soon to be replaced by CF3. If you are serious about using just a 35mm adaptor you should consider a similar setup.

The CF1 and CF2 diffusers function together. The CF3 replaces them completely and functions alone.

Gosh...shooting a wedding with an adapter would be a LOT of fun but just soo much more work. I can't imagine it...however I've always done my weddings alone so I'm running from place to place to get all the shots and can't imagine changing lenses or dealing with adapter issues on top of that...