Does "low cost adapter" mean anything anymore?

Bill Porter · May 2nd, 2006, 02:23 AM

Jim Lafferty, you certainly like to twist words around. Just because I or anyone were impressed with the G35 at that time, doesn't mean Jonathan and crew reached their goal.

I pointed out that they abandoned the design yet you say "Actually it proved exciting enough that..." I never said it wasn't exciting. I said they abandoned it. Which is true.

You continue, "Perhaps your standards have changed." Again, twisting my words. I said G35 abandoned it since it didn't meet their goal. I didn't even mention my standards. End of story.

Three cheers for lowing the bar in the "classy" department, by even implying my words on the subject were dishonest or not to be trusted. So far in this discussion you are the only one attempting to twist words or put words into another's mouth. And, you are the one trying to sell a product. Hmm.

On that point, I recall a post from you saying something about how wrong it was that G35 allegedly took the sweat of the collective brow of this forum and was going to try to make a profit by it. Funny how you've changed camps.

Personally I think your adapter sounds great. Some of the footage had massive distortion and abberation at hte edges, but other footage looked good so far (though it never said how far stopped down the lens was at any one point, in the Caterpillar test footage). But your negative slant toward G35 bugs. And until you sell some product, don't forget your adapters are still vapor too.

Jim Lafferty · May 2nd, 2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

Personally I think your adapter sounds great. Some of the footage had massive distortion and abberation at hte edges, but other footage looked good so far (though it never said how far stopped down the lens was at any one point, in the Caterpillar test footage).

You should check the footage again -- the lens settings are noted with the large lettering at the bottom of the clip, and within the post the clip is linked from. It's the same 50mm 1:1.4 lens in other clips, at between f/2.8 and f/11 throughout. Frankly, much of it was shot at f/5.6 and f/8, but I didn't want to bother with taking note with each shot and have to change the titling accordingly -- seems like a lot of unnecessary work.

I've publicly, and repeatedly, made note of the edge distortion and major chroma aberrations, and they've since been fixed, which is evident in the most recent clip posted (and the whole reason for putting that clip together in the first place.)

You seem to be a little confused elsewhere, too, when you write: "I said G35 abandoned it since it didn't meet their goal. I didn't even mention my standards. End of story." I know you didn't mention your standards -- I was anticipating the mention of them in a forthcoming response, since we already seem to have mine and the G35 team's sufficiently covered by the discussion. I was allowing you an opportunity to say that your excitement a year ago has since proven unfounded, especially given that it was a response to a product that is, in light of recent events and implied by you here, now deemed "unacceptable." Just so we're clear: you've now stated that I'm releasing a product that is simultaneously beneath someone else's standards, but evidently great enough that it got your ringing endorsement.

I think it's plain to anyone looking in where your allegiances lie, Bill, and things you've written toward me here, whether outright or implied, are clearly negative. From "by your own admission you'll be selling a product of similar optical quality as something G35 deemed unacceptable. :o/" to "until you sell some product, don't forget your adapters are still vapor too" -- backpedalling behind semantics won't hide the fact that comments like these aren't exactly encouraging.

I'd regret having responded in the first place if it weren't for the fact that I feel letting attacks stand unanswered isn't the appropriate solution, either. But I find the content and character of the rest of your post, and any possible response, to be taking an innevitable turn downward. I'm not about to waste my time like that -- I've got a product to pull out of the aether :)

- jim

Bill Porter · May 2nd, 2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

It's the same 50mm 1:1.4 lens in other clips, at between f/2.8 and f/11 throughout. Frankly, much of it was shot at f/5.6 and f/8, but I didn't want to bother with taking note with each shot and have to change the titling accordingly -- seems like a lot of unnecessary work.

Hardly unnecessary considering A) the viewer has no way to know when you were at F11 or for how long, B) multiple potential customers have asked for it, and C) your competition did it without even being asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

I was allowing you an opportunity to say that your excitement a year ago has since proven unfounded, especially given that it was a response to a product that is, in light of recent events and implied by you here, now deemed "unacceptable."

Anticipating my standards is nothing more than putting words in my mouth. And to correct you, my excitement wasn't unfounded, nor is the original G35 "an unacceptable product." It simply didn't meet the manufacturer's own goals. It did meet the standards of lots of other people who are still begging for one, even a static one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

Just so we're clear: you've now stated that I'm releasing a product that is simultaneously beneath someone else's standards, but evidently great enough that it got your ringing endorsement.

Absolutely! What kind of car do you drive? You and thousands of other people with the same car may love it every bit as much as I love that G35 footage. But if it's a Japanese, Korean, American, French, Italian, or British car, does it meet the standards of Mercedes Benz (except for the C-class)? Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

I think it's plain to anyone looking in where your allegiances lie, Bill, and things you've written toward me here, whether outright or implied, are clearly negative. From "by your own admission you'll be selling a product of similar optical quality as something G35 deemed unacceptable. :o/" to "until you sell some product, don't forget your adapters are still vapor too"

My allegiances lie with anybody who doesn't flame other potential vendors. Jon of G35 and Quyen Le are two people who impress me to no end in that vein. But to imply I'm biased against you is false. If you can come up with an adapter that suits me, and release it at an appropriate cost, I may even buy one!

You on the other hand...
It's clear with whom you have a bone to pick, as evidenced by your earlier posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

backpedalling behind semantics won't hide the fact that comments like these aren't exactly encouraging.

Before you falsely assert that I'm backpedalling, don't you try to twist my words yet again. I haven't backpedalled one bit: Where did I state that the G35 is currently available?

Eagerly awaiting your retraction and apology,
Your potential first customer in line,
BP

And now back to regular programming on this thread about low cost adapter...

Jim Lafferty · May 2nd, 2006, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

Hardly unnecessary considering A) the viewer has no way to know when you were at F11 or for how long, B) multiple potential customers have asked for it, and C) your competition did it without even being asked.

Show me that clip, please.

Bill Porter · May 3rd, 2006, 02:45 AM

It was on G35's site. I have it saved locally. Email me if it's no longer on their site, and I'll email it to you.

Though whether the competition did it or not is hardly the best reason to do something that your potential customers are asking for.

Wayne Morellini · May 3rd, 2006, 07:51 AM

Has anybody compiled a wiki or anything of all the different methods, dead ends and how they perform against each other? That way newcomers could get straight to it.

Jim Lafferty · May 3rd, 2006, 09:17 AM

There is a wiki entry that gives you a good overview of the principles of the process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field_adapter

Jim Lafferty · May 3rd, 2006, 09:21 AM

When the time comes, I think I can put together a pretty massive "adapter shootout" article and have plans in place to do so. The idea would be to do a series of DVXs, one without an adapter, one with the SD, one with the Pro, and one with a leading moving adapter. It will take some doing, so don't expect it up right away...

Wayne Morellini · May 3rd, 2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

There is a wiki entry that gives you a good overview of the principles of the process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field_adapter

Thanks, had a look at that wiki entry, nice summary of the basics, but it does not summarise other information. I was hoping for something that summarised all the essential information, descriptions of different techniques, and parts links into one readable database. So new comers can learn everything quickly without repeating questions. It would probably be ten to a hundred times bigger, with detailed construction information about HD and different methods, like the newer plastic bag methods. I point people to these projects but there is a lot of information and threads to go through.

I previously suggested a online database that everybody could submit information into and changes, moderated and cleaned by local moderators, maybe a wiki.

Jim Lafferty · May 3rd, 2006, 10:54 PM

Sounds good. I'd be willing to help, if you'd like. I've done a hell of a lot of experimenting in recent months, and I now have a good grasp of some of the more thorny particulars and would be willing to share them.

When go-35.com goes live, I'm thinking of having a "DIY Corner" on the forum and had planned on doing this sort of thing anyway...

- jim

Frank Hool · May 4th, 2006, 02:55 AM

It really doesn't matter what manufacturer says! Public doesn't even know what adapter were used taking those demo clips. Was it letus or g35 in guerilla case. What does matter is what another customer says. So we know about number adapters that they exist at least :) . Jim, You have to get Your adapter out ASAP to save yourself from such debates.

What i like personally by Your adapter is it's static. Static still have many advantages.

Jim Lafferty · May 4th, 2006, 09:03 AM

I think you're stretching things a bit -- I supplied pics of the adapter and went on shoots with another person who can tell you that the adapter does indeed exist and works as shown in the clips.

But your overall point is spot on -- too many naysayers willing to nitpick, which is why I've pretty much stepped away from doing updates until the thing is dressed up and ready to go out :)

- jim

Frank Hool · May 4th, 2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Lafferty

I think you're stretching things a bit -- I supplied pics of the adapter and went on shoots with another person who can tell you that the adapter does indeed exist and work as shown in the clips.

I'm very sorry if i leave such impression. It would be silliest thing to say right now after You just anounced Your adapter gave out already some footage. Building such adapter and giving some chewable public output(web, news, pics footage) in the same time - it's truly nightmare. I know.
And once again it's static - i very much hope - this thing gonna rock, same time still static :) .

May 3rd, 2006, 09:17 AM	#22
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	There is a wiki entry that gives you a good overview of the principles of the process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field_adapter __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

May 3rd, 2006, 09:21 AM	#23
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	When the time comes, I think I can put together a pretty massive "adapter shootout" article and have plans in place to do so. The idea would be to do a series of DVXs, one without an adapter, one with the SD, one with the Pro, and one with a leading moving adapter. It will take some doing, so don't expect it up right away... __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

May 3rd, 2006, 10:54 PM	#25
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	Sounds good. I'd be willing to help, if you'd like. I've done a hell of a lot of experimenting in recent months, and I now have a good grasp of some of the more thorny particulars and would be willing to share them. When go-35.com goes live, I'm thinking of having a "DIY Corner" on the forum and had planned on doing this sort of thing anyway... - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G

May 4th, 2006, 09:03 AM	#27
Jim Lafferty Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 636	I think you're stretching things a bit -- I supplied pics of the adapter and went on shoots with another person who can tell you that the adapter does indeed exist and works as shown in the clips. But your overall point is spot on -- too many naysayers willing to nitpick, which is why I've pretty much stepped away from doing updates until the thing is dressed up and ready to go out :) - jim __________________ Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G Last edited by Jim Lafferty; May 4th, 2006 at 11:21 AM.

May 2nd, 2006, 02:23 AM	#16
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Jim Lafferty, you certainly like to twist words around. Just because I or anyone were impressed with the G35 at that time, doesn't mean Jonathan and crew reached their goal. I pointed out that they abandoned the design yet you say "Actually it proved exciting enough that..." I never said it wasn't exciting. I said they abandoned it. Which is true. You continue, "Perhaps your standards have changed." Again, twisting my words. I said G35 abandoned it since it didn't meet their goal. I didn't even mention my standards. End of story. Three cheers for lowing the bar in the "classy" department, by even implying my words on the subject were dishonest or not to be trusted. So far in this discussion you are the only one attempting to twist words or put words into another's mouth. And, you are the one trying to sell a product. Hmm. On that point, I recall a post from you saying something about how wrong it was that G35 allegedly took the sweat of the collective brow of this forum and was going to try to make a profit by it. Funny how you've changed camps. Personally I think your adapter sounds great. Some of the footage had massive distortion and abberation at hte edges, but other footage looked good so far (though it never said how far stopped down the lens was at any one point, in the Caterpillar test footage). But your negative slant toward G35 bugs. And until you sell some product, don't forget your adapters are still vapor too.

May 3rd, 2006, 02:45 AM	#20
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	It was on G35's site. I have it saved locally. Email me if it's no longer on their site, and I'll email it to you. Though whether the competition did it or not is hardly the best reason to do something that your potential customers are asking for.

May 3rd, 2006, 07:51 AM	#21
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Has anybody compiled a wiki or anything of all the different methods, dead ends and how they perform against each other? That way newcomers could get straight to it.

May 4th, 2006, 02:55 AM	#26
Frank Hool Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Barca Spain Posts: 384	It really doesn't matter what manufacturer says! Public doesn't even know what adapter were used taking those demo clips. Was it letus or g35 in guerilla case. What does matter is what another customer says. So we know about number adapters that they exist at least :) . Jim, You have to get Your adapter out ASAP to save yourself from such debates. What i like personally by Your adapter is it's static. Static still have many advantages.