Brevis35 - Optional GG Footage at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Alternative Imaging Methods
DV Info Net is the birthplace of all 35mm adapters.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 13th, 2006, 02:57 AM   #1
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 916
Brevis35 - Optional GG Footage

Here are some quick shots using the first in our collection of optional GG release candidates. Swapping from the standard diffuser element to this one using our interchangeable system takes less then 5 minutes...and there are no setup changes. This GG setup takes us much closer to a film match from f1 to f2.8 where the standard diffuser is a very good match from f2.8/4 to f16. The shots are all done using a 50mm f1.4 using the GS400 in pro-cinema mode...nothing done in post except the flip and some slow mo.

Fast Link

Slow Link
Dennis Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2006, 06:24 AM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 223
What kind of gg is this? Is it better material?
Yasser Kassana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2006, 08:36 AM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 916
Not better, just different. Early in testing it became obvious (and more so now) that every shooter has different expectations with respect to bokeh. Just as directors of photography choose primes and apertures for a specific look using film, it was obvious that some choice in the diffuser would offer similar options. I've done extensive testing comparing actual film bokeh taken with a 35mm SLR to the adapter footage. This is the first result.
Dennis Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2006, 11:39 AM   #4
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin, Tejas
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Wood
Here are some quick shots using the first in our collection of optional GG release candidates. Swapping from the standard diffuser element to this one using our interchangeable system takes less then 5 minutes...and there are no setup changes. This GG setup takes us much closer to a film match from f1 to f2.8 where the standard diffuser is a very good match from f2.8/4 to f16. The shots are all done using a 50mm f1.4 using the GS400 in pro-cinema mode...nothing done in post except the flip and some slow mo.

Fast Link

Slow Link
You know, about 4 months ago (right after I got my letus35a) I kicked about the idea of controlling the look of your footage through different GGs. Something like the RMS ratings on film. You want a dark gritty look use ground glass A. You want a sharp clear picture use ground glass B.

Personally I think this a real solid idea. I'm already sold on the combination of HD and a 35mm adapter, but with the ablity to have additional control over the look is pretty friggin nice.

Plus, I fully expect rapid advances in the GG and can't justify buying a whole new adapter just to get a better GG.
Jim OQuinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2006, 12:07 PM   #5
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK
Posts: 938
I agree this is a good idea. Its been something I have wanted to implement into the SGpro for a long time, but due to the nature of its design, it has been difficult to make it user changeable.

I think you have done a great job, Dennis. What are the main optical differences between the 2 GG's? Level of diffusion/diffusion angle??
__________________
Thanks,
Wayne.
Wayne Kinney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2006, 03:03 PM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,268
It looks very soft, maybe because the GS400, but I'm pretty sure I have seen sharper footage from the brevis. The bokeh looks nice. I wonder if it isn't possible to get both, a sharp image and a nice bokeh together.
Michael Maier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2006, 05:07 PM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 916
Jim, I'm not sure there will be tremendous advances in GG's simply because physics gets in the way of a diffuser trying to be film :-) The fact that the diffusers can be swapped out though makes good sense in a number of ways and certainly opens up other GG options.

Wayne, the option could be visually quantified as providing more diffusion.

Michael, the interesting thing about your comment is that some folks think the footage is sharp, some think it's soft, and some think it's a bit noisy. The noise is the GS400, however the other two criteria are pretty subjective, particularly as I've provided no baseline reference. It is true though that because the DOF is shallower, less of the frame is actually in focus. Having alternatives makes sure that the ultimate authority, the shooter, get's to choose their look :-) What I'm pretty excited about is that when compared to my extensive test shoots with the standard diffuser, this stuff looks just as sharp. The penalty is another .5 stops of light loss.

I have invested a great deal in some pretty cool stuff, so this is just the start with respect to diffuser options. Now if I could just recover costs on the failed trials...

Thanks for your feedback gentlemen.
Dennis Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2006, 05:39 PM   #8
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 45
Soft? Noisy? I wonder if they also complained about the small amount of gg seen in the left edge of the picture? I found the footage as sharp as it should be and the new GG seemed to perform great also. It's amazing how fast these adapters are developing.
Mikko Parttimaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2006, 08:19 PM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 916
Yep, there's some GG there. It would be nice if the LCD/viewfinder didn't have the overscan issue. I get caught all the time by this. Thanks for your feedback Mikko.
Dennis Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2006, 04:35 AM   #10
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Wood
Michael, the interesting thing about your comment is that some folks think the footage is sharp, some think it's soft, and some think it's a bit noisy. The noise is the GS400, however the other two criteria are pretty subjective, particularly as I've provided no baseline reference.
I'm comparing it to SD footage from the Mini35 and Movietube and also SGPro and M2. Now none of them were with a camera as low end as a GS400 I have to admit. That may be the difference. They were mainly DVX, XL or PD.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Wood
It is true though that because the DOF is shallower, less of the frame is actually in focus.
I was, naturally, talking about the parts that are in focus. They look soft to my eyes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Wood
Having alternatives makes sure that the ultimate authority, the shooter, get's to choose their look :-)

Yes, this is a great idea and a great feature you are offering.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Wood
What I'm pretty excited about is that when compared to my extensive test shoots with the standard diffuser, this stuff looks just as sharp. The penalty is another .5 stops of light loss.
0.5 loss is nothing if the bokeh is better, but I really canít see it being as sharp as the older tests. Maybe itís just me.
Michael Maier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2006, 08:43 AM   #11
Tourist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: slovakia
Posts: 2
hmm

sorry but its really sharper than previous tests, you have something with eyes :))
Martin Biskup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2006, 10:37 AM   #12
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 916
When I get some time, I'll post up comparative footage to end that debate :-) With camera differences, camera aperture, backfocus accuracy, achromat type, 35mm lens and aperture used, GG used, and 35mm lens focus accuracy, there are way too many variables that potentially will make even my own footage suspect. I really need to post up the comparisons (film, bare cam, stock and optional diffusers) under very controlled conditions, with uncompressed DV, to allow folks to judge the relative differences.
Dennis Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2006, 03:32 AM   #13
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: kentucky, USA
Posts: 429
Could someone please explain what "bokeh" is. Thanks
Steve Witt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2006, 08:45 AM   #14
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Witt
Could someone please explain what "bokeh" is. Thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
Theodoros Chliapas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2006, 09:06 AM   #15
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: kentucky, USA
Posts: 429
Thankyou Theo, I had no Idea such a word existed until I kept reading and seeing it on here.
Steve Witt is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:16 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network