redrockmicro VS canon lens???

Brian,

Good question. Originally, the M2 was named the Micro35, but then Redrock changed the name to the M2 a month or so ago.

The Mini is a product by P+S Technik that runs around $10k+ (depending on your camera and other equipment that you may buy along with it). This does not even include the cost of the lenses.

Here's a link to more info on the Mini 35:

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/index.php

[Michael Guarino]

Originally Posted by Kelly Wilbur

Michael, I can only answer from my limited experience. I don't know a lot about lenses to begin with. There are others who can talk about all the technical aspects of lenses for days.

There are different mounts you can get from the M2 to fit different lenses. I went with the Nikon because Nikon hasn't changed their mounting system in 50 years and there are a lot of used Nikons out there really cheap.

I picked up a Nikon 50mm 1:1.4 lens, a Nikon 135mm 1:2.8 and a Nikon 28mm 1:2.8. I am having some problems with the 28mm that I haven't determined if the fault is the lens, the M2 or me. I will have to get back with you on that. However, the 50 and 135 work great. I used the 50mm for 90% of all of my shots...it just seems to capture the right framing for most interior shots. Plus, at 1.4, it doesn't lose much light. The 135mm was used for closeups, but was quite a bit darker at 2.8. I really need to get an 85mm.

So, I guess I'd recommend Nikons at 50 and 85 and try to get the fastest lenses possible. You'll probably do fine with 1:1.4 to 1:2.8.

If you want more detailed info, I'm not the one to ask. There are a lot of individuals with a lot more information on the forums at redrockmicro.com. I would strongly recommend you go there and ask again. They will give you more info than you know what to do with.

Remember, I only started doing this so I wouldn't say I am an authority on anything.

Thanks,

Kelly

Thanks Kelly, well, with any luck I will join you very soon in the ranks of M2 n00b's. You're stills on your page have definitely inspired me to look into this further, and you've certainly steered me in the right direction.

Thanks very much,

Mike

[Ash Greyson]

I think Jay was talking about MOST people who have a mattebox, especially the DVX fanboys, when prompted why say, "it looks cool." I dont know much about the M2, I have used the Mini35 a couple times but I would ALWAYS prefer to rent an SDX-900 or a Varicam.



ash =o)

[Brian Valente]

Just to clarify on the M2/micro35 question - we have not gotten to updating our site, but here's the basic gist:

the M2 is short for micro35 version 2 (hence just "M2"). The M2 is the currently shipping product. It is identical in every way to the micro35, except we upgraded the image element (ground glass). Here is a short excerpt from our support forums on our website regarding the M2:

m2 is two items:

First, m2 is a new imaging element (i.e., the "ground glass") that uses a new technology we've researched developed. It is so novel it is patent pending. The m2 is this simply a change in what the imaging element is made out of, but brings with it three significant advantages:

1. m2 has no grain, which to a large extent renders static vs. moving debate irrelevant.

2. m2 has significantly improved light. The photometrics conducted on it show the adapter to be nearly lossless in light.

3. m2 is significantly sharper and has better color and contrast.


Sorry for all the seeming subterfuge - we weren't trying to be sneaky, we just wanted to start getting some footage out there and available before we generally discussed the M2.

Also, the price hasn't changed - still $500 for the adapter.

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Kelly Wilbur

Jay, I'm really not sure why you would say that. Do you mean I'm just trying to "cool" by putting stuff on my camera?

Kelly, yes, in some cases (the majority) that is exactly what's happening. I've been in this business for over 30 years. I can tell instantly, from reading posts here, the difference between those who are wanting to look cool and those who are knowledgeable, practicing filmmakers.

My philosophy about 24p and limited DOF is that these are characteristics you can actually see when you go the the movie theater and watch a major motion picture. The 24p characteristic can be see in the way motion occurs and the limited DOF can be seen in the overall image. Over the years, this has created a culture that associates 24p and limited DOF with a higher standard of quality.

I'll agree with this comment, but only to a point. It has created a culture of wanabe filmmakers who think 24p and DOF are a higher standard. The introduction of 24p and DOF, as a be-all, end-all, do not create or add to "a higher standard of quality" in film. If people around here would study the history of cinema--and cinematography specifically--they'd learn that for years (and I'm talking decades) cinematographers busted their butts to achieve "deep depth of field." Herein lies the irony. The DPs that gave us some of the most memorable, most beautiful images in cinmea, would give their right yarble for the depth of field we are able to get today with the dreaded "video camera."

I'm not saying that it truly IS higher quality. There is no doubt that it is NOT. If anything 24p and limited DOF create a LESS accurate image. But I am not trying to get the most accurate image. If I were, I would have gone with an HD camera that couldn't shoot 24p or I would shoot at 30p.

You appear to be contradicting yourself, then. I don't understand what you mean by "accurate image."

This is about emulating a standard the our culture associates with what they think is a higher standard. There is no doubt that the 24p and limited DOF help you emulate that standard.

You hit the nail on the head when you said "what they think."

Don't take my footage as a completely representative sample. This was my first time shooting anything ever. As Derek said, pretty soon you will see footage from people who really know how to shoot.

There was nothing wrong with your footage, per se. It was properly exposed and well composed--you did a good job there. The problem that I saw (and not in your footage alone, I've seen footage using this device shot by a true professional) was the device degraded the image to the point that was, in my opinion, unacceptable. No reflection on you, just the device.

Jay

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

woo hoo! kelly wilbur and jay gladwell in a cage match! these are the dvinfo moments we all live for!

LOL -- Then Meryem, you and the others need to get out more! ;)
I'm confident Kelly would agree.

And like Ash said above, if 24p and shallow DOF were absolutely necessary in a given project, then I'd rent a camera that could deliver it without all the hassle and added expense.

It seems absurd to me to pay $3,500 or more for a camera and then pay $15,000 for a device to attach to it, then another $10,000 (cheap) for a set of prime lenses just to get a shallow DOF when I can get far better for far less by renting the appropriate tool for the job.

Jay

Jay,

What camera would you rent... and/or buy if you had a $15k to $25k budget to do so?

Just curious. Thanks.

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Derek West

Jay,

What camera would you rent... and/or buy if you had a $15k to $25k budget to do so?

Just curious. Thanks.

Derek, depending on the project, I would probably go with the Panasonic SDX-900 due to it's general flexibility. On the other hand, again, depending on the project, I might go with the Panasonic's Varicam if more resolution was required.

In this day and age, I would not buy a high-end camera (I'm tickled pink with my XL2). Upgrading software every whip-stitch is one thing, with cameras... let the rental houses absorb that expense!

Jay

Thanks Jay. Just needed to know what poster needed to replace my Ferrari poster.

LOL

[Meryem Ersoz]

you're right, jay, i do need to get out more. i'm stuck at my desk editing for a few days, when i always prefer to be outside in the wilder-wild, scurrying around with my excessive loads of camera gear.

once again, this discussion rocks! makes sense of a lot of things, especially the current orthodoxy about shallow DOF, which until now, i was not able fully understand. it is interesting what comes into and out of vogue, as jay points out.

in gear-head land, we get tunnel vision, easily attached to what someone else declares desirable, when actually film history is littered with an enormous range of looks, formats, styles, techniques, etc. which come in and out of style.

the vast majority of audiences themselves are actually willing to accept more of a range of looks than we producers are, because they don't know any better. they are too busy trying to follow the story at a narrative level or to make sense of the juxtaposition of images to worry about whether a film has the "right" look or not.

heck, the vast majority of my students have come into film history I without even being able to distinguish between film and video, let alone whether an artifact has shallow DOF or not. noticing DOF is actually a fairly high level of visual literacy for most students...most of them have never even heard the term or couldn't define it if they did.

given that i often carry a lot of my own gear single-handedly for many miles to capture a single shot, i never really understood why anyone would want to add a matte box to the load.

nor, for that matter (sorry jay!) a really good/heavy tripod, which, while great in a studio, can easily double the weight in a backpack. i'm really in the process of trying to master the beanbag tripod, so i can ditch the big, hairy thing altogether.

so much gear, so many configurations. all part of the fun of figuring it out.

thanks for sharing your ideas on this one...really has me mulling over a lot of things....

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Derek West

Thanks Jay. Just needed to know what poster needed to replace my Ferrari poster.

Derek, you could outfit yourself with quite a setup for the price of a Ferrari!

Jay

Or I could sell all my current digital video equipment for a good start on buying one! I never knew digital video could be so darn addictive.

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

the vast majority of audiences themselves are actually willing to accept more of a range of looks than we producers are, because they don't know any better. they are too busy trying to follow the story at a narrative level or to make sense of the juxtaposition of images to worry about whether a film has the "right" look or not.

Very astute observation!

given that i often carry a lot of my own gear single-handedly for many miles to capture a single shot, i never really understood why anyone would want to add a matte box to the load.

It adds to the monetary load as well! First there is the cost of the matte box ($1,500!) and then a 4x4 filter ($260) cost considerably more than a 72mm filter ($88), in this example a Tiffen WTR/WHT Ultra Polarizing filter!

... nor, for that matter (sorry jay!) a really good/heavy tripod, which, while great in a studio, can easily double the weight in a backpack. i'm really in the process of trying to master the beanbag tripod, so i can ditch the big, hairy thing altogether.

Meryem, no need to apologize. You use what can and/or need at the time. I have yet to find anyone piece of gear that does away with all other pieces of like gear. I view the various tools as a painter may view his variety of brushes.

Having said all that, if that's how a person wants to spend his money--more power to him. That's his right!

Jay

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Derek West

I never knew digital video could be so darn addictive.

Derek, sounds like you might want to join the rest of us as a member of G.S.A. (Gear Sluts Anonymous).

Jay

Is it sponsored by Canon and Apple? ;)