Barry Green's thoughts on the Guerilla35...
 

We sent Barry Green a Guerilla35 prototype a few weeks ago for him to review. Here are some comments on the adapter.

Thanks to Barry for taking time out to test our product. We are still testing and will be posting comments as testers give them to us. Thanks again!

Jonathan Houser
H&H Optics.
www.guerilla35.com

Good deal. Thanks for sharing this with us Jonathan,

Guerilla35 sounds great. My biggest concern is with dirt and dust. Otherwise I have pretty good faith you've worked your way around having prevalent static grain somehow. Sounds like you've found a way to treat the optics such that it's more like capturing an image off a projection screen from afar, instead capturing the image up close.

I'm interested in using the Panasonic HVX200 with the G35, and hopefully the viewfinder works the same as the DVX with the flip trick.

steev

Steev,
It's a valid concern. The adapter has been designed to be fully sealed via "0" rings. You can theoretically submerge the adapter in water and no damage would be done, although we would not recommend it. What we are saying is it would take quite a bit of abuse to cause it to "leak" anything into the housing i.e. breaking elements and all that fun stuff.

Jonathan-

Well, geez, Jonathan---if I can't even take it into the bathtub ...!

Just kidding. Have you set a price on this thing yet?

JS

Bath time is more fun with the G35. Pricing is still being worked on. It all depends on what we will be offering with the unit. I.E. dovetail and rail system, LCD monitor, mounts. I can give you a range if that helps. $999-$1499. Kind of a big range i know, but as we are still working on drawings for the final unit, that's the best I can do for now. Thanks!

Jonathan Houser
www.guerilla35.com

This sounds like its on its way to becoming a pretty solid product! Only one major question remains in my mind. We have all waited so long for something like this to come out that we now must consider it's abilities on HD or HDV cameras and not just SD. When I hear reports that its just slightly soft at SD I have to wonder if I'm going to be locked into that same level of softness even if I put a HD/HDV camera behind it. Basically I'm wondering if my new HD camera is going to "look" more SD then HD thru this adapter. Resolution charts shot with and without this adapter on a HD camera will reveal its true ability. After all I dont want to drop a grand or so on a adapter only buy a HD camera in the coming months and feel the DOF adapter is holding my camera back. Hopefully some HD frame grabs with and without the adapter will be posted.

Anyone use the Pro35? I've heard that some people feel it has this exact problem on HD cameras. Their demo DVD isnt of much help because its SD. Love to hear opinions from operators.

Brett,
The word "soft" is a tricky word. When I hear it I think of "Out of focus" as do many people. However I'm finding that it's not really that, so much as "Less harsh". That probably describes what's going on with these adapters. I'm not noticing much of a resolution loss at all. I'm still yet to shoot a chart (properly) and do a comparison though. Here are some stills of some Z1 footage I shot today. Forgive the quality; I’m not really familiar with the codec. However, it should give you an idea of image quality to a point.

:: 56K WARNING::

www.guerilla35.com/Z1.html

Let me know what you think.

Jonathan Houser
www.guerilla35.com

Can't wait to try it on an HVX...

I have noticed one thing: with focus on manual (and zoom-ed all the way) when you roll focus from one target to another, the "sharp" one losses some color;
Why? because the edge enhancing circuit kicks in. End result: the "softer" part has more color compared to the sharp one. The "sharp" one is also "brighter"
(nice way to make it "stand out" for all.....) All of the above camcorder only.
Using a converter, automatically gives focus in on one plane only (and usually on a relatively small section, if the aperture is wide open) End result: more color and less artifacts (edges).
Jonathan, the pics look good.

Well, there you have it. Much more scientifically put that I could ever do. Bravo!
Thanks!

Jonathan-

Thank you for your quick response! I looked over the images and I can say with confidence that you have the clearest looking static adapter image. I do see "softness" but it does seem to improve with a HD camera rather then say the same as a SD camera. How much "softness" is the question that the resolution charts will answer but first looks give me the impression that is overall exceptably sharp. I think its going to be one of thoughs situations where the viewer doesnt even feel like they are missing anything in the clarity of the picture until they see a side by side. For the first time however I see a hint of "grain" in the image when shooting at HD resolutions. Something on the order of what you would see if it was a 35mm still frame. This amount of grain is obviously not a problem for 35mm film but since the type of grain here is not moving I would be curious if it would become strangely apparent and distracting when you pan the camera and the grain doesnt move. Then again perhaps its not grain I'm seeing but how you compressed these frame grabs for the web. Either way I can tell you this > You have the clearest focusing screen I have seen to date. Worse case senario you can offer a second model - Guerilla35 HD. This could use your same great focusing screen but oscillating or if you wish to stay with a static adapter you could increase the size of the focusing screen to lessen the grain and have the option of using medium format lenses with it. Only one problem with these ideas...If you use them you have to give me one for free ;-)

Thank you. There are many factors that should be noted as well that make this "test" not really scientific. My back focus was off, and the focusing screen and most of the adapter was fully disassembled earlier on that day (at the drafter's). So saying that I didn’t have the time to sit in a clean environment and fully ensure that there were no particles in the housing when I re-assembled.

In this case I think the latter is true. As long as the lens is open more than 4.0 there is no visible "Texturing". Even after 4.0 it’s very slight and stays consistently slight until 11 or 16. I took the liberty of renting a Sony HR monitor to check the footage as I didn't have the camera for more that a day or so. When reviewing I was very pleased with the footage. I also gave Shawn Murphy the chance to really look at the image close. I then started at 2.8 and progressively stopped down until 16. He could probably describe what he saw to you all. Like I had stated earlier. I'm not familiar with the HDV codec. So my workflow was kind of screwy. I will try to grab two stills right next to each other so you can pull the two into Photoshop. Decrease the transparency on one and then you can see that the grain that is visible is actually video noise.

I have actually thought about doing this. Making a Contax mount. Zeiss lenses. Only if there was an issue with image "texturing" though. I'm going to see what I can do about getting a Z1 or FX1 and shooting a Proper resolution chart. I'm not a big fan of working in HDV. Possibly because I'm not familiar with it? I had to do the work around; IMoive HD then pull into FCP HD then export to Photoshop, then un-squeeze the image. Not really the cleanest of work flows.

Thanks for your comments!

Jonathan-

Jonathan, actually, the picture quality I saw through your monitor as well as the on-camera LCD (when we tested with the DVX camera) seemed a lot sharper then the images you posted from the Z1, but then again, we just ate sushi so who knows what our mental capacity was at the time! (for the record, at the time of testing I had no alcohol in my system) ;-)

I'm not sure what resizer or deinterlacer you used, but it created alot of unnecessary pixelation. The DOF is there and looks great. As far as lost resolution, I'd have to see the original footage.

http://www.uploadhouse.com/images/320388492CLOTH1.JPG

Yea, I totally agree. I have the footage captured as QuickTime files captured via IMovie HD. I then pulled it into Final Cut Pro HD. Selected a frame exported with QuickTime conversion as a png. Then pulled it into Photoshop de-interlaced it via the video filter. Un-squeezed it and then flipped it. I'm sure there is a more efficient way to get the frame grab. Can anyone shed some light on my workflow? Should I be using some sort of After Effects De-interlacing filter?

Thanks!

Jonathan