NEW Micro35 images and footage now available

[Brian Valente]

Hey All -

Originally Posted by Kyle Edwards

Seeing the sample footage where the still came from is a much better example of the quality. Judging from that still frame doesn't compliment the actual footage.

Kyle - that grab *was* from the footage.

Mandy - I saw the shadow - which what it is. If you look at frame 16:17 or so you will see corners have no vignetting. But I realize shadows are tricky.

Chris - thanks for clearing that up

John - You have a great subject with good detail to capture - we will have to pick better flowers next time (ours were a gift). When I look at your still compared to the gardenstill (http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/...rdenstill1.tif) , I do think it holds its own in detail. I can see small freckles in her face, individual hairs, etc. and there isn't the grain present in yours.

Regarding sample footage, rez tests, focus tests, etc. We are going to see Barry this week to drop off a unit and have him give you an unbiased third party opinion, have him shoot rez charts etc. to address your questions.

We appreciate all the feedback, and for pushing us to make our product better. One thing we have done is enhance the achromat to a larger diameter, which will add about 20-25% more resolution. Barry will get this one (and the one micro35 customers will get) and we think it will deliver even better results.

This also speaks to another benefit: the micro35's modular design. As we enhance the product, these enhancements can be dropped in to the micro35 for both new and existing customers). It was important for us to develop a design where you could drop in enhancements - not a static "locked down" design where any enhancements would require you to upgrade to a new unit.


Brian

[Kyle Edwards]

Originally Posted by Daves Spi

Are you sure about the "high res" ??? Roses are totaly unsharp, and the bottles are very soft. I resized your tif downto 50% and then enlarged it to 200%. Guess what happened ? ... nothing - looks same :(

Originally Posted by Kyle Edwards

Yes, the Micro35 images are much softer than straight from the camera. Also seeing things in motion is another thing.

My post was referring to that one in which I failed to quote. Your TIFFs are from VIDEO which is MOTION which would be a better judge of the product than a still. Does this only make sense to me?

[Daves Spi]

Originally Posted by Kyle Edwards

Your TIFFs are from VIDEO which is MOTION which would be a better judge of the product than a still. Does this only make sense to me?

Yes, but the stills from movie should show details, if you cant see it on still, you will not see it in movie either.

http://test.datriware.com/motion/f01.jpg
http://test.datriware.com/motion/f09.jpg
http://test.datriware.com/motion/f10.jpg
http://test.datriware.com/motion/f12.jpg

See the details ? And its compressed JPGs...

[Kyle Edwards]

Yes I'm following that thread also. I was not trying to bring your adapter into this to compare. Both have their benefits and problems. But watching the footage of the Micro35 instead of checking out a still would be a better judge. That is all I am saying. You can take a still from any 35mm movie and you can say it has too much grain, softness, etc. Seeing it in motion is another story. Not trying to start an argument here either, so please do not take it that way.

[Daves Spi]

Originally Posted by Kyle Edwards

So please do not take it that way.

Yes, the judge and freedom is most powerfull thing we have :) Personally, I do not like showing us Z1 stills, while argue its high res, because it was shooted on Z1... I'm following M35 since the footage with small girl and guitar. It moved pretty much, but unfornately more in desing than in function...