Disappointed in Redrock M2 adapter

Jim Giberti · May 23rd, 2006, 02:05 PM

Going back to Joyce's original post; what lenses have you used with the M2 Joyce? This is restating some basic DOF points, but what's basic to one film maker might be informative to another, so here goes.

There are four primary factors that influence DOF. They are:
Focal length of the lens.
Aperture of the lens.
Relationship of camera to subject.
Relationship of foreground and background to subject.

You don't need to apply any of these any differently to the Mini 35 setup...there is a direct relationship.

As for the M2, because I haven't used it yet and because it relies on the existing zoom lnes as it's relay, I can't speak to the optimal setting for that lens in order to emulate the Mini 35, but I'm quite sure that when properly setup, it too has a direct relationship to the above criteria.

So once the HD100 lens is set correctly for the M2, the only things you need to understand are how the four above factors interact to affect DOF.

Some of the really nice CU and tight CU film work is often done with an 75mm, 85mm, or 105mm prime lenses. I also like to shoot those with 135mm. An 85mm is the kind of lens that you can open up from say 12 feet away and get a medium CU with nice separation from the background.

If you really want to blur that background, you might half that distance using the same f/stop, t/stop (I'm being really general for brevity here).
But by moving that 85mm closer to the subject and maintaining the aperture setting tht gave you a reasonably soft DOF you will now see a substantially more blurred background. That's the camera to subject relationship. By keeping the 85mm in it's original place and opening up the iris a stop or two more you will "approximate" the same effect.

Now, given the same distance of subject to background, say you want to shoot a wider FOV but still have a nice shallow DOF. Then a nice fast 50mm (1.2 is my favorite) and a closer positioning to the subject will get you there.

We and lots of other people have shot all day and gotten totally different FOV and DOF by moving around the location with nothing but a 35mm and 50mm lens - it's all about those four factors and their relationships to each other.

If you're outdoors or doing a large interior and you've got a great deal of distance between subject and background, then you can stop down the lens more or use a wider angle and open it up more. depending on what the shot dictates...that's the beauty of 35mm and apparently it's even better with the M2 because you don't suffer the approimately 2 stop loss of light that make Mini 35 that much more of a tricky tool.

No matter how you look at it, the concept of shallow DOF is to give separation to your subject and to create a three dimensional look that has previously only been associated with "film" making.
By practicing and gaining an understanding of how focal length, aperture, and camera/subject/background all interact, you'll be able to get the M2 to emulate the characteristics of a 35mm sensor rather than the 1/3" CCDs we're working with.

Hope this helps.

Michael Maier · May 23rd, 2006, 03:01 PM

Nice post. They will have a pretty good idea of how to get what they want now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

We and lots of other people have shot all day and gotten totally different FOV and DOF by moving around the location with nothing but a 35mm and 50mm lens - it's all about those four factors and their relationships to each other.

But depending how you do it, people would look different from shot to shot. Works, but not ideal.

Jim Giberti · May 23rd, 2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Nice post. They will have a pretty good idea of how to get what they want now.

But depending how you do it, people would look different from shot to shot. Works, but not ideal.

Thanks Michael and yes it works but it ain't ideal. Our prime kit consists of 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm (and a big honkin 180mm that's a beautiful piece of glass). I'll tell you, the day that someone develops a way to get true DOF with a lens as fast as the HD100's with that kind of range...

Joyce Mahoney · May 23rd, 2006, 10:22 PM

First off, I have to say, you guys completely rock the house. I got involved in this group because of Jonathan who I met at HD Expo last year with George Dibie, another great guy and he told me about both dvxuser and you guys here. Since then he's become a real mentor and my go-to-guy with his like 20 years in the business and eagerness to take time to help me and everyone else but you guys, well, I juast don't know how to tell you how much you mean to us three girls who are shooting their first real paying gig. First, Paolo, I wound up shooting with a 50 dialed out to 2.8 which is about what Jim recommended and Jonathan hit me with this afternoon. Our paths crossed at Willow Springs Race Track today where my unit and his were shooting (Weird but that place is a So. Cal. hotspot for filming) Anyway, the tape read 10 feet from lens to subject and you all were right. I got great separation and could 3-point rack from subject to driver in the car 5 feet back and finally to the background track where the cars were spinning laps. So the trick was, open it up and lock it down. But that was the bad part. The thing rocks when you get it dialed in but the slightest movement and the focus goes whacko and I need to reset everything. I mean I accidentally kicked the sticks and when I looked through the viewfinder, it was out of line and this is weird because I saw the demo at NAB and people were whackin' the bejesus out of that cam and the Redrock held its focus ground. So, to make a long story short, I'm getting the hang of it, especially with Jim's big time post (Thanks and LD hugs to you) but what's the story with it being tempermental. In my new and humble opinion, they should make a unit that is totally sealed, racks on the camera body and when you put on your favorite lens, your ready to roll. Maybe that's too much to ask right now but at least i made it through the day and learned siomething. Again, you guys rock and a big time hugs and thanks from three girls who are, thanks to you, getting a clue!

Chris Barcellos · May 23rd, 2006, 10:36 PM

Yeah, right now, it seems like the industry is moving to larger chips to get the depth of "film" depth of field thing, but since the 35mm adapters seem to be so popular, it would be interesting to see someone come up with a camera dedicated to the the 35mm adapter concept. Can you imagine a unit with the same type of screen, and fixed and specifically designed lens to shoot the screen. I suppose that is being done on some level with the interchangeable Canon cams...

Jim Giberti · May 23rd, 2006, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joyce Mahoney

Again, you guys rock and a big time hugs and thanks from three girls who are, thanks to you, getting a clue!

Right back at ya girls. When you live on top of a mountain in Vermont just talking with people in civilization (let alone CA) is a gas. If I'm not on location or in the studio I go days without talking to anyone but dogs and horses.

Not that I'm complaining.

Paolo Ciccone · May 23rd, 2006, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joyce Mahoney

First, Paolo, I wound up shooting with a 50 dialed out to 2.8 which is about what Jim recommended and Jonathan hit me with this afternoon.

Sounds good. I have a 50mm Canon prime, f1.8, that is actually very nice and shows an excellent DOF, I mean, I get that nice blurry BG easily. I was just wondering.

Seems you are on the right path, good luck.

Joyce Mahoney · May 23rd, 2006, 11:40 PM

To Jim- Vermont rocks. In fact jonathan and I had common ground there too. I'm tellin ya, this biz is a really, really small world! He always stays at the Inn at Essex and I, being of substantially lower means than him, stayed there once and fell in love with the place. Ice sculptures at the entry, uilding set out in the country, Culinary Institute w/ food to die for. One day I'm gonna be at that level.

As to Jim, horses and dogs are my thing too. They love you unconditionally, don't ask for anyting except your love and care and, well, they just beat guys all to heck, present comopany excluded.

As to Chris, I understand that this Taylor Wigton is close to solving the whole lock-down, one size fits all thing. He hired one of jonathans attorneys for patent for which he's footing the bill because he says he's figured a way to way to do what i wondered about in the last post, seal a unit and lock everything down. I'm telling you, having to reset the focus once I got it dialed in was a real pain. But we're out there again tomorrow to try Jims' and the rest of your ideas and i'm getting there early to try the different apperatures and distances you guys mentioned today in your posts. God bless you guys one and all and one of these days we all have to get to gether so I and my compadres can give you big hugs for your help, Again, no other words suffice. YOU ROCK!

Chris Hurd · May 24th, 2006, 12:37 AM

Horses and dogs? My favorite discussions... but that would be veering too far off topic here!

;-)

Joel Aaron · May 24th, 2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joyce Mahoney

So, to make a long story short, I'm getting the hang of it, especially with Jim's big time post (Thanks and LD hugs to you) but what's the story with it being tempermental.

Well - part of that is what $1k gets you vs. $10,000.

This stuff is sorta experimental really. The M2 isn't a great toy for people that aren't real good at "jiggering". I'm working on a M2 to Hd-100 setup that should be more "sealed" when it's set up so it can bumped etc. and still be OK. I'll post pics once I get it worked out.

I'm curious to see if Taylor has a new relay lens. As it stands, if you're using the Fujinon and you bump the zoom or macro ring then you're out of focus. So until that lens is out of the loop we need to keep using a little TLC. Or gaff tape. :-)

Jonathan Ames · May 24th, 2006, 11:04 AM

Well the short story is I don't know what he did because he won't or rather can't tell me because of trade secrets with him and Redrock over the M2. Apparently he's been working with Redrock and has come up with this way of stabilizing everything in addition to creating the DOF I need. When he set it up, he used an Achromat lens, I know that much but I didn't watch how he was doing it but it worked perfectly and now I had a great setup that unfortunately I can't duplicate successfully maintaining both the DOF and stability. He's a great guy and offered to set it up anytime for me but can't tell me how it's done beacuse of his allegiance to Redrock and his sense of fairness and honor. What a rare find! I really respect that guy but I can't carry him around in my back pocket so I'm kind of in a quandry. What I saw at NAB can be done but Taylor or Redrock I guess has to do it because I can set up the lenses but I don't know how he secured everything so no matter how we jossle it or bump it, it doesn't lose focus like it didn't lose focus at NAB. Sorry guys and girls but I'm stuck too.

Michael Maier · May 24th, 2006, 11:50 AM

Well, if that's really true, and I hope something is being misunderstood, it's not fair from Redrockmicro to it's customers. If the M2 indeed has a "secret setting" or whatever it may be, to make it work better and if so, they clearly would set it that way for any reviews, specially that Taylor did do a review on the M2 even putting it above the Mini35, but nobody is allowed to know how to set it up to perform that way, well I must say they are misleading the public. I think that may even be illegal. People will read Taylor’s (or any review) and will buy the M2 thinking they will be able to set it up the same way Taylor did but they won’t because for some weird reason it’s a top secret move. If you ask me, that’s quite ridiculous. I hope I’m misunderstanding something here, otherwise, I really can’t understand why they wouldn’t be allowed to tell how they do it. Doesn’t make any sense.

Joel Aaron · May 24th, 2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ames

I don't know how he secured everything so no matter how we jossle it or bump it, it doesn't lose focus like it didn't lose focus at NAB. Sorry guys and girls but I'm stuck too.

Was the stock Fujinon lens still on the camera or was another lens being used in its place?

Joel Aaron · May 24th, 2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

If you ask me, that’s quite ridiculous. I hope I’m misunderstanding something here, otherwise, I really can’t understand why they wouldn’t be allowed to tell how they do it. Doesn’t make any sense.

Considering how little information we have I'd say it's likely there's some level of misunderstanding. If Taylor has a new invention he's working on then he might need a little privacy for a while.

As to the unit giving shallow DOF... as long as you're not using a wide angle lens it will. I've never actually heard this particular complaint anywhere. A 50MM at F8 focused at 6 feet is much more shallow than anything the stock Fujinon lens can do at that distance with the same Field of View. Usually people are shooting the Micro35 at F4 or less on their SLR lens. Other than putting a wide angle lens on there it's pretty tough to get deep DOF.

As far as the ability to knock the unit out of focus, that's been possible with the M2 on every camera since the beginning. Bump the zoom and you're out of focus. That's not going to change for any adapter/camera combo that doesn't have a custom made relay lens. You can use a 55mm male to male macro coupler to try to link the M2 to the Fujinon so they are locked together. That's part of what I'm working on now, but I won't have one here for a few days.

Also - a general FYI for anyone reading along:

Depth of Field is the Zone of Sharpness.

"Greater DOF" is DEEP and means more in focus front to back
"Less DOF" is SHALLOW and mean less in focus front to back.

"BETTER or GOOD DOF" is like saying "better or good field of view". It doesn't clarify much.

Here's a little more on the subject.
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam...-of-field.html
"The zone of acceptable sharpness is referred to as the depth of field. Thus, increasing the depth of field increases the sharpness of an image. We can use smaller apertures for increasing the depth of field."

Jonathan Ames · May 24th, 2006, 12:32 PM

I don't think anyone is misleading anyone and, quite frankly, everyone who knows me knows that I won't stand for misdirection or misleading statem,ents. My tiff with IDX has been proof of that for months so I'm a pretty good judge of character. I don't know the people at Redrock but from what I know about Taylor, he's a stand-up guy and would never hide or mislead anyone. I think it may be that Redrock realized that there was no inherent stability in the system and has been working on that to make better an already good product. Taylor may have discovered how to make it stable and was helping me but protecting the work he and Redrock are working on right now to provide the public later. I have a friend at Grass Valley who's been waiting on a delivery of his M2 from Redrock for almost 2-months now for testing with the new Infinity and has heard nothing so perhaps they're implementing the stability on new models and will make it available to all of us when it's perfected so what they provide us will match what they showed at NAB. I can't imagine that they would show a product at NAB, makes sales off that product based on what we saw at NAB and then not have the product deliver what we saw. Again, I simply don't know. What I do know is the the Redrock that I used I couldn't get to work and the Board here was an immense help in allowing me to understand the complexities of the system. Taylor was good enough to put his stuff aside to help me get the set up for the shots I absolutely had to have that day and his system worked flawlessly. Whether or not Taylor's system of making the Redrock stable is something he figured out for himslef or he and Redrock are working on to provide to us, I don't know and there's no mention of it on there board. I just thought it odd that, after seeing what I saw at NAB with people smacking a camera around back and forth and putting it through a torture test of sorts and never once having it be out of focus, I was having the difficulty I was getting it to work. I mean I'm not the sharpest pencil in the rack but I'm not that dumb either. I just figured you could put it on, adjust it once, lock it in place and shoot hapilly the rest of the day with normal camera movement and jostling. Unless it's me, that's simply not so. Anyway, the camera I was using had either the stock Fujinion or the 13 on it. It wasn't the 20, I know that and I think it was the stock lens because I pulled it straight out of one of the cases and we keep or other lenses separate from the stock configuration that fits in the cases.

May 23rd, 2006, 10:36 PM	#20
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Yeah, right now, it seems like the industry is moving to larger chips to get the depth of "film" depth of field thing, but since the 35mm adapters seem to be so popular, it would be interesting to see someone come up with a camera dedicated to the the 35mm adapter concept. Can you imagine a unit with the same type of screen, and fixed and specifically designed lens to shoot the screen. I suppose that is being done on some level with the interchangeable Canon cams... __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

May 24th, 2006, 12:37 AM	#24
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Horses and dogs? My favorite discussions... but that would be veering too far off topic here! ;-) __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 23rd, 2006, 02:05 PM	#16
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	Going back to Joyce's original post; what lenses have you used with the M2 Joyce? This is restating some basic DOF points, but what's basic to one film maker might be informative to another, so here goes. There are four primary factors that influence DOF. They are: Focal length of the lens. Aperture of the lens. Relationship of camera to subject. Relationship of foreground and background to subject. You don't need to apply any of these any differently to the Mini 35 setup...there is a direct relationship. As for the M2, because I haven't used it yet and because it relies on the existing zoom lnes as it's relay, I can't speak to the optimal setting for that lens in order to emulate the Mini 35, but I'm quite sure that when properly setup, it too has a direct relationship to the above criteria. So once the HD100 lens is set correctly for the M2, the only things you need to understand are how the four above factors interact to affect DOF. Some of the really nice CU and tight CU film work is often done with an 75mm, 85mm, or 105mm prime lenses. I also like to shoot those with 135mm. An 85mm is the kind of lens that you can open up from say 12 feet away and get a medium CU with nice separation from the background. If you really want to blur that background, you might half that distance using the same f/stop, t/stop (I'm being really general for brevity here). But by moving that 85mm closer to the subject and maintaining the aperture setting tht gave you a reasonably soft DOF you will now see a substantially more blurred background. That's the camera to subject relationship. By keeping the 85mm in it's original place and opening up the iris a stop or two more you will "approximate" the same effect. Now, given the same distance of subject to background, say you want to shoot a wider FOV but still have a nice shallow DOF. Then a nice fast 50mm (1.2 is my favorite) and a closer positioning to the subject will get you there. We and lots of other people have shot all day and gotten totally different FOV and DOF by moving around the location with nothing but a 35mm and 50mm lens - it's all about those four factors and their relationships to each other. If you're outdoors or doing a large interior and you've got a great deal of distance between subject and background, then you can stop down the lens more or use a wider angle and open it up more. depending on what the shot dictates...that's the beauty of 35mm and apparently it's even better with the M2 because you don't suffer the approimately 2 stop loss of light that make Mini 35 that much more of a tricky tool. No matter how you look at it, the concept of shallow DOF is to give separation to your subject and to create a three dimensional look that has previously only been associated with "film" making. By practicing and gaining an understanding of how focal length, aperture, and camera/subject/background all interact, you'll be able to get the M2 to emulate the characteristics of a 35mm sensor rather than the 1/3" CCDs we're working with. Hope this helps.

May 23rd, 2006, 10:22 PM	#19
Joyce Mahoney Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 42	First off, I have to say, you guys completely rock the house. I got involved in this group because of Jonathan who I met at HD Expo last year with George Dibie, another great guy and he told me about both dvxuser and you guys here. Since then he's become a real mentor and my go-to-guy with his like 20 years in the business and eagerness to take time to help me and everyone else but you guys, well, I juast don't know how to tell you how much you mean to us three girls who are shooting their first real paying gig. First, Paolo, I wound up shooting with a 50 dialed out to 2.8 which is about what Jim recommended and Jonathan hit me with this afternoon. Our paths crossed at Willow Springs Race Track today where my unit and his were shooting (Weird but that place is a So. Cal. hotspot for filming) Anyway, the tape read 10 feet from lens to subject and you all were right. I got great separation and could 3-point rack from subject to driver in the car 5 feet back and finally to the background track where the cars were spinning laps. So the trick was, open it up and lock it down. But that was the bad part. The thing rocks when you get it dialed in but the slightest movement and the focus goes whacko and I need to reset everything. I mean I accidentally kicked the sticks and when I looked through the viewfinder, it was out of line and this is weird because I saw the demo at NAB and people were whackin' the bejesus out of that cam and the Redrock held its focus ground. So, to make a long story short, I'm getting the hang of it, especially with Jim's big time post (Thanks and LD hugs to you) but what's the story with it being tempermental. In my new and humble opinion, they should make a unit that is totally sealed, racks on the camera body and when you put on your favorite lens, your ready to roll. Maybe that's too much to ask right now but at least i made it through the day and learned siomething. Again, you guys rock and a big time hugs and thanks from three girls who are, thanks to you, getting a clue!

May 23rd, 2006, 11:40 PM	#23
Joyce Mahoney Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 42	To Jim- Vermont rocks. In fact jonathan and I had common ground there too. I'm tellin ya, this biz is a really, really small world! He always stays at the Inn at Essex and I, being of substantially lower means than him, stayed there once and fell in love with the place. Ice sculptures at the entry, uilding set out in the country, Culinary Institute w/ food to die for. One day I'm gonna be at that level. As to Jim, horses and dogs are my thing too. They love you unconditionally, don't ask for anyting except your love and care and, well, they just beat guys all to heck, present comopany excluded. As to Chris, I understand that this Taylor Wigton is close to solving the whole lock-down, one size fits all thing. He hired one of jonathans attorneys for patent for which he's footing the bill because he says he's figured a way to way to do what i wondered about in the last post, seal a unit and lock everything down. I'm telling you, having to reset the focus once I got it dialed in was a real pain. But we're out there again tomorrow to try Jims' and the rest of your ideas and i'm getting there early to try the different apperatures and distances you guys mentioned today in your posts. God bless you guys one and all and one of these days we all have to get to gether so I and my compadres can give you big hugs for your help, Again, no other words suffice. YOU ROCK!

May 24th, 2006, 11:04 AM	#26
Jonathan Ames 2nd Unit TV Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 509	Well the short story is I don't know what he did because he won't or rather can't tell me because of trade secrets with him and Redrock over the M2. Apparently he's been working with Redrock and has come up with this way of stabilizing everything in addition to creating the DOF I need. When he set it up, he used an Achromat lens, I know that much but I didn't watch how he was doing it but it worked perfectly and now I had a great setup that unfortunately I can't duplicate successfully maintaining both the DOF and stability. He's a great guy and offered to set it up anytime for me but can't tell me how it's done beacuse of his allegiance to Redrock and his sense of fairness and honor. What a rare find! I really respect that guy but I can't carry him around in my back pocket so I'm kind of in a quandry. What I saw at NAB can be done but Taylor or Redrock I guess has to do it because I can set up the lenses but I don't know how he secured everything so no matter how we jossle it or bump it, it doesn't lose focus like it didn't lose focus at NAB. Sorry guys and girls but I'm stuck too.

May 24th, 2006, 11:50 AM	#27
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Well, if that's really true, and I hope something is being misunderstood, it's not fair from Redrockmicro to it's customers. If the M2 indeed has a "secret setting" or whatever it may be, to make it work better and if so, they clearly would set it that way for any reviews, specially that Taylor did do a review on the M2 even putting it above the Mini35, but nobody is allowed to know how to set it up to perform that way, well I must say they are misleading the public. I think that may even be illegal. People will read Taylor’s (or any review) and will buy the M2 thinking they will be able to set it up the same way Taylor did but they won’t because for some weird reason it’s a top secret move. If you ask me, that’s quite ridiculous. I hope I’m misunderstanding something here, otherwise, I really can’t understand why they wouldn’t be allowed to tell how they do it. Doesn’t make any sense.

May 24th, 2006, 12:32 PM	#30
Jonathan Ames 2nd Unit TV Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 509	I don't think anyone is misleading anyone and, quite frankly, everyone who knows me knows that I won't stand for misdirection or misleading statem,ents. My tiff with IDX has been proof of that for months so I'm a pretty good judge of character. I don't know the people at Redrock but from what I know about Taylor, he's a stand-up guy and would never hide or mislead anyone. I think it may be that Redrock realized that there was no inherent stability in the system and has been working on that to make better an already good product. Taylor may have discovered how to make it stable and was helping me but protecting the work he and Redrock are working on right now to provide the public later. I have a friend at Grass Valley who's been waiting on a delivery of his M2 from Redrock for almost 2-months now for testing with the new Infinity and has heard nothing so perhaps they're implementing the stability on new models and will make it available to all of us when it's perfected so what they provide us will match what they showed at NAB. I can't imagine that they would show a product at NAB, makes sales off that product based on what we saw at NAB and then not have the product deliver what we saw. Again, I simply don't know. What I do know is the the Redrock that I used I couldn't get to work and the Board here was an immense help in allowing me to understand the complexities of the system. Taylor was good enough to put his stuff aside to help me get the set up for the shots I absolutely had to have that day and his system worked flawlessly. Whether or not Taylor's system of making the Redrock stable is something he figured out for himslef or he and Redrock are working on to provide to us, I don't know and there's no mention of it on there board. I just thought it odd that, after seeing what I saw at NAB with people smacking a camera around back and forth and putting it through a torture test of sorts and never once having it be out of focus, I was having the difficulty I was getting it to work. I mean I'm not the sharpest pencil in the rack but I'm not that dumb either. I just figured you could put it on, adjust it once, lock it in place and shoot hapilly the rest of the day with normal camera movement and jostling. Unless it's me, that's simply not so. Anyway, the camera I was using had either the stock Fujinion or the 13 on it. It wasn't the 20, I know that and I think it was the stock lens because I pulled it straight out of one of the cases and we keep or other lenses separate from the stock configuration that fits in the cases.