ultimate or elite
 

I am torn, I like the price point on the elite, but to have total freedom of aperture on the ulitmate would be nice. but I have seen some great stuff come from the elite.

you guys with elites wish you could have the ultimate? or do you not notice the limitations that much?

I have been eyeing the bundle on BH for a while, and have a project coming up that would be great to have it on, but cant decide on which letus to get!

I relly love my letus extreme ( together with my canon H1), but wish I could afford, or had the business to justify, the Ultimate. It would be great to have the option of deeper dof when needed by stopping down the iris. Right now,on the extreme, you can't go past 5.6 or you get smear. If I need deeper dof, i have to go to a wider lens (24 or 35). I'd love the freedom to get whatever dof I wanted without going to a wider lens.
Bruce yarock
Yarock Video and Photo

If you can afford the Ultimate, you'd be mad to get the Elite.
I have the Extreme, and I love what I can get from it, but after your initial tingles at what it can do, you soon bang up against the 120th shutter speed and f5.6 wall, which leaves you slobbering like a dog for a juicy steak for a spinning GG adaptor.

If I had the business that would justify the purchase, I'd get it in a heartbeat.

My own sense on this question is that in the Ultimate and Extreme/Elite, you have two similar but slightly different tools, each which can do some things the other can't.

What I do find interesting is how far it has been possible to push groundglass imaging.

If I had the business to justify the Ultimate....can you say " American express"?
Bruce Yarock

I enjoy your informative posts Bob. I'd be interested to hear what you think the vibrating GG can do better than the spinning (as I haven't ever used a spinning GG adaptor)?

My bias is towards a spinning disk as I built one. However a spinning disk wastes a fair bit of real estate unless it is made fairly small.

I understand the available groundglass area on the Ultimate is more confined than the Extreme/Elite.

I may well be wwwwrrrrong, in which case you, Quyen, Hien and all who own and operate the Ultimate can metaphorically clap me in the stocks and pelt me with rotten tomatoes if I am indeed wrong (as oft I can be). Metaphorically I said, so put those tomatoes down and go home.

The larger available groundglass area on the Extreme/Elite permits a little more apparent resolution and field-of-view cheating than the Ultimate.

The vibrating groundglass ( I prefer to call it orbiting or oscillating ) as you rightly suggest, has its legs in irons anywhere beyond about f5.6 when it comes to artifacting, whereas the Ultimate has more going for it in this area.

To make it work right for the small movement the orbiting groundglass provides, the transparency has to be greater than for a spinning groundglass. The bokeh from a spinning groundglass can be made better because the texture can be permitted to be a little coarser.

Hien Le is believed to have said that he "owns" bokeh with the Ultimate. My guess is the texture is a fraction coarser than the Extreme/Elite.

Whatever, the results do tell their own story as Phil Bloom has demonstrated, especially now that the direct relay lenses have been sorted.

Speaking of Bokeh.....I hate to admit it, but I played with the new Cinimeek adaptor at the Zacuto booth (at NAB) and LOVED the bokeh. The difference is hard to explain. But it was most obvious with lights that were out of focus in the background. With the Letus, they look like someone used a gaussian blur filter. It's a nice looking blur, that's very uniform. With the Cinimeek there were actual edges on the blurred lights. For example the center of the light would be blurred similar to the letus, and the light would be much larger (because it was blurred) but instead of a feathered edge, the edges were sharp. You'd have to see it to understand. It has a wonderful look.

I'm not that experienced with the different looks of bokeh, but supposedly the Cinimeek has a bokeh that looks more like what you get with a true film camera and lenses.

The negative with the Cinimeek was that it was HUGE. Much longer than any of the Letus adaptors (maybe twice as long), and I think there was a lot more light loss. But I had no trouble shooting with it indoors with the available light inside the Las Vegas Convention Center, so it couldn't have been that bad. Another plus with the Cinimeek is that there are no moving parts. The ground glass is static (doesn't spin or vibrate). So that's one less thing to worry about (no broken belts or depleted batteries).

But I still like our Letus Ultimate. Plus, when Letus finally releases the EX3 relay, then they will have an unbeatable combination......at least for a while. ;)

Mitchell.


Was the same lens used on the Letus and the Cinemek?

There is considerable difference in bokeh rendition between lens types, even similar lenses.

Eg., Nikon f1.2 58mm. (Noct Nikkor) Earlier model has seven blade iris, the later ones a nine blade iris, which is supposed to render a superior bokeh circle rather than a segmented one.

My understanding of best bokeh lens rendition is that the bokeh circle has no sharply defined edge.

Sorry Bob. I didn't think to look at the lenses being used (duh!). But the Cinimeek designer said that I would notice the bokah difference with his adaptor compared to others. I'm "guessing" that his adaptor is the main reason for the difference in bokah. But yeah, I should have looked at the lenses being used.

Point is, if you get a chance to look through a Cinimeek rig, you should. :)

Does the Cinimeek have a website? I just googled and there's only 1 result--this thread.

Try "cinemec" or "cinemek"

Here's a Philip Bloom review: Cinemek G35 - Zacuto

Here's their website: CineMek ®

Thanks guys. Looks interesting. Don't think I'll be trading in the Letus yet though--the lack of flip is a deal breaker for now.

^^^^What he said^^^^ (it does have awesome bokah though)