|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 29th, 2007, 01:22 PM | #31 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
I also se Ca all over the place on those grabs. DOF is not nearly as shallow as I like. For 4,000 I think I'm better off with a SGpro. Nothing to do with being a "nay-sayer". It's just not worth $4,000 for what it is IMO. May be for other people, but not for me. |
|
January 29th, 2007, 01:25 PM | #32 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
Quote:
__________________
Tim Dashwood |
|
January 29th, 2007, 01:27 PM | #33 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29th, 2007, 01:31 PM | #34 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 6,152
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29th, 2007, 01:33 PM | #35 |
I'm way confused 'cuz now you're noting the same things I was...LOL.
Looking at these frame grabs, the DOF is hardly noticeable....with the exception of the closeup, and I would expect very shallow DOF in that scenario with any lens. I agree, I hate hate hate the batteries and vibrating screens, which is why I was so attracted to this unit. But the DOF is really not a selling point. Guess I'm not very impressed with this adapter, especially given the cost. |
|
January 29th, 2007, 01:40 PM | #36 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
Quote:
__________________
Tim Dashwood |
|
January 29th, 2007, 01:57 PM | #37 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29th, 2007, 02:07 PM | #38 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 184
|
Watch "The Devils Rejects" - Entire thing is Super 16mm, Looks good to me.
Also about loss of light. I have a feeling that with this adaptor and a super fast lens you would actually gain light over the stock lens. |
January 29th, 2007, 02:16 PM | #39 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 6,152
|
Quote:
f2.8 @ 10ft: 6ft 8" to 20ft while f1.4 @10ft: 8ft to 13ft 5" This is similar to how people use the Digiprimes on 2/3" CCD cameras. However, if stylistically you want an even shallower DOF, you'll have use a 35mm format. I expect there were a number of reasons why JVC decided to go with using 16mm, one of which I expect is that 35mm adapter market is pretty well covered. |
|
January 29th, 2007, 02:42 PM | #40 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 285
|
Quote:
The best argument you make is the price, though, and you do have a more than fair point--particularly since a hd250 plus adapter costs $14,000--near the price of a true 2/3'' camera. And whil you may need 4 times the light to use a ground glass adapter, you can use cheaper lenses (nikon rather than angenieux, zeiss, etc.). And $4,000 buys a lot of light. |
|
January 29th, 2007, 02:44 PM | #41 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
I don't want anyone to write the device off yet based solely on my footage. I shot this just to see for myself how well this "too good to be true" technology actually worked, and decided to share my excitement and the footage on my own accord. Proper tests will need to be conducted with various prime and zoom lenses to make any sort of definitive conclusions.
Until that time, keep in mind that I was using a fairly wide lens - 16mm focal length, with the subjects at close to the MOD. Also, this was an IMPROMPTU TEST conducted 'spur of the moment' on a very busy street, below freezing temperatures, during one of the biggest film festivals in America! All things considered, I think the HZ-CA13U performed exceptionally well, especially since I popped it off the tripod it had been publicly displayed on all weekend, took it outside to shoot, and I didn't even check the back focus. Personally, as someone who has shot a fair share of 35mm, S-16, 16mm and video, using this device for a few minutes was a revolutionary moment for me. I'll probably never forget it. Sony gave the world of cinema HD video at 24fps in the late 90's, Panasonic gave us affordable 24P on miniDV in 2002, P+S released the mini35 around the same time (not so affordable,) and now JVC has created a PL mount reimager for 1/3" HDV without a ground glass for under $5000! I have a couple of major label music videos coming up that I really want to push to use this device on. This will allow me to shift the budget normally allocated for film stock/processing/transfer into other areas. This is a big deal! At $4400 list price, rental house rates will probably be around $100/day or less. I've included some links to a few very short ts files trimmed from the original 720P60 m2t files for those of you who still doubt the sharpness. These will play fine in VLC. http://www.timdashwood.com/.Public/dog.ts http://www.timdashwood.com/.Public/craig1.ts http://www.timdashwood.com/.Public/craig2.ts
__________________
Tim Dashwood |
January 29th, 2007, 02:50 PM | #42 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29th, 2007, 03:08 PM | #43 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
Quote:
There is no denying that RED will shake up the 4K and 1080P market when it is finally released (I'm looking forward to it,) but it will still be in a slightly different teir than the market we are talking with the JVC/Canon products. There is already a huge installed base of ProHD users on the planet. I'm sure rental houses stocking the HZ-CA13U will have no problems renting it on a daily basis. Also, the $17,500 price tag of RED just gets you started (I think the LCD monitor is included) but I'm pretty sure you still need to accessorize with drive or flash, rails, cage, batteries, etc.
__________________
Tim Dashwood |
|
January 29th, 2007, 03:11 PM | #44 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,269
|
Quote:
I'm somewhat convinced about the sharpness. I say somewhat because the footage has an artificial feeling to it, specially over the skin. Did you have skin tone on or something. Sometimes it looks plastic. But there's still CA and basically the same amount as 35mm GG adapters. Besides that there's the DOF matter which I like to have the flexibility to choose a very shallow DOF at times. I know you used a 16mm lens, but this is not as wide for the 16mm format. That's about a 33mm lens in 35mm actually. Not that wide. But the worst point is the price. At $2,000 that would be interesting. But at almost $4,500 when you add a HD200 you are almost in RED's territory. Yes, I know, it's not out yet. But still. |
|
January 29th, 2007, 03:16 PM | #45 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 6,152
|
Quote:
|
|
| ||||||
|
|