Redrock, Brevis, SGPro Shootout

[Yves Fortin]

This is really good footage of the SGPro and HVX200. I like to see Brevis + HVX as sharp as this.

http://www.sgpro.co.uk/thanar-theodoroschliapas.mov

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Originally Posted by Paul Leung

Just a question for Dennis. How would you compare the images from these three adapters to the ones from your P+S?

It's really too bad Phil couldn't get his hands on a mini35 for this shootout as well just to see! (Boy Phil looks like you have a new part time job. Better leave town quick!)

It's extremely difficult to base any judgement on only the three images taken by Phil. I can't tell you how many times I've watched a video shot with the M2 and said, "Wow - that's the alternative 35mm adapter to buy". Then watched something shot with the SGPro and said, "Wow - that's the alternative 35mm adapter to buy". Then seen some footage shot with the Brevis and said... well you get the point.

I honestly think the images from all three adapters are comparable to the mini35 with only subtle differences between each of them. It's also really hard to judge still images versus video since a still images will show things that may not be visable in moving video.

If I had to judge these images posted by Phil (trying to compare them to the results I've seen with the mini35) I really like the natural look and color rendition of the SGpro and M2 equally. They are of photographic quality in my opinion. The Brevis image has more color saturation which isn't a bad thing but the highlights are blown out while the rest of the image is properly exposed. Adding more ND filters or stopping down the 35mm lens would only make the rest of the image underexposed to preserve the levels in these hot spots. This suggests a limited dynamic range as indicated by Chad and maybe fixed by using an ultracon on the taking lens or trying a different CF from Cinevate. We need to see more tests and samples to know for sure what it is but so far we've also seen it in Richard's video linked here by Ing Poh Hii. I want to add however that you can not beat the low light capability of the Brevis as of yet.

On the SGpro image I noticed some blue color fringing on the flag poles on the right of the frame (see attached image). This artifacting does not appear on the M2 or Brevis images but to me seems like a kind of aberration near the top edges of the frame. You can also notice it very slightly on the left most lamp post on top of the bridge. Since it would appear that the SGPro was setup using a slightly wider frame size on the GG I wonder if this could be a contributing factor?

All three images have great detail at infinity. Check out the tiny blue boat past the 2nd bridge to the right of the bridge column! On the other hand for HD these images all look a little soft as they would with the mini35 or any 35mm adapter for that matter...

Bottom line though is don't judge a book by it's cover. With the right tool in the right hands many things can be accomplished! I'll post some stills I've taken with the mini35 so you can see if there's any major difference and if you do, if you think it's worth paying nearly 10 times the price of one these adapters Phil tested.

[Dennis Hingsberg]

As indicated here are some mini35 frame grabs for reference:

[Dennis Hingsberg]

...and a couple last few stills from my recent steadicam & mini35 shoot.

Comments please and also welcome - cheers!

:)

[Bob Hart]

P+S rules for climbing in, turning the key and having the belief it wll start and take you where you want to go and fewer post-production hassles.

Each alternative adaptor type is going to have its own + and - attributes.

Beyond that and by far the most important factor is the human body which attaches itself to the camera/adaptor.

When I visited the shoot of "The Eleventh Soldier" recently I shot some footage of my own on the set and got taught a little lesson.

For some shadow shots I attempted to replicate the lens focal lengths, aperture choices and frame-ups of the DP. When it was not possible for me to shadow, I went off and got some other shots of my own.

The stuff which faithfully shadowed the DPs choices looked filmic and usable, which is of course why I shot it, - to learn. The other stuff mostly just looked like happy snaps with a bit of DOF thrown in.

The Mini35 is pitched at existing film-fluent camera ops to enable them to use their existing toolset of lenses in many cases. Thus it conforms to an industry standard, hence its reliability and predictability.

The crop of alternative adaptors is not bound by these rules. Provided the camera op does not want to reproduce the motion picture look as entirely as video permits, the other adaptors are each a valid tool.

Some have advantages and all have subtle difference which might suit individual operators.

It is like DPs choosing Kodak or Fuji for a given look or mood, or when Agfa was still around, using that stock for its own unique attibutes or maybe even mixing stocks on a single shoot.

What was that stuff the Russians were using - "Orwo?" I don't think anyone went after that as a deliberate creative choice. I seem to recall reading somewhere that they used Kodak stock when they could get it for shots they wanted to count and the local product for the mundane footage.

Beyond Kodak reversal film, I still think Agfa negative did outback Australian and African bush best. - Does anyone remember Kodak's 7252 low contrast reversal stock?

[Ian Lim]

Ing, just curious, how do you shoot weddings using 35mm adapter?=D I'm your neighbour from Indonesia=D

[Dennis Wood]

Phil, regarding Dennis H's. above comments on the blue fringing...did you use the same 50mm on all three? Dennis, any time I need some footage critiqued, I know who to talk to...sharp eyes. CF1 is our preferred diffuser for light efficiency, but CF3 will be one most will compare (soon) to the other adapters, particularly outside.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachmen...1&d=1170214446

Also, taking a closer look at the grabs, (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....&postcount=155) all the shots seem the same on the right side (two poles) but the Brevis grabs show more real estate on the left side (bridge railing). Were the units just swapped on the tripod?

[Phil Bloom]

unfortunately due to Wayne not having a Nikon mount he used a canon lens whilst the Brevis and M2 had the Zeiss Planar lenses.

The camera was on the tripod but of course had to be removed for each swap, but we tried to match it up as close as possible.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Yves Fortin

This is really good footage of the SGPro and HVX200. I like to see Brevis + HVX as sharp as this.

http://www.sgpro.co.uk/thanar-theodoroschliapas.mov

Yeah, the SGpro really seems to be the sharpest adapter. I remember some macro photography done with ambient light and the SGpro that looked razor sharp too.

[Ing Poh Hii]

Originally Posted by Chad Terpstra

I don't think so, ING. I think it's possible there MAY be an issue with the Brevis (and CF1) not having as high a dynamic range as the other two adaptors. I don't really know for sure, but it seems to me that one of the shots with the boat and with the chart that the blacks are all exposed equally but the mid to high tones get washed away just a bit more with the Brevis and how this test was conducted. Hopefully CF3 will be able to handle more dynamic range (hold onto the highlights as well as the darks tones) or you may have to use a low contrast filter such as a Schneider Digicon filter: http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecomm...D=431&IID=2326

Hi Chad, Thank you very much for following-up the test of dynamic-range issue of Brevis (and CF1) and thanks for the suggestion of low contrast filter :-).

I thought it was only me having eyes-problem or just anti over-filmic effect. I have noticed too the blacks from all three adapters are mostly equal (anyone have photoshop to sample the RGB value of those black ?). I hope it was the CF1 to be blamed and the new CF3 can retain the mid to high (also mid to low) tones.

Phil, when you started your parttime job (testing adapters :p...), please can you test with the identical len aperture (F1.4~8) with & without ND. Shooting at the river bank is always challenging for cameras (in handling contrast), you may pick a much easier setup to test. **and please don't forget, I can be your useless assistant :) **

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

CF3 will be one most will compare (soon) to the other adapters, particularly outside.

Dennis, any chance you will post some outdoor footage (with some people in the scene) soon this week ? Many Thankss~

Originally Posted by Ian Lim

Ing, just curious, how do you shoot weddings using 35mm adapter?=D I'm your neighbour from Indonesia=D

Hi my dear neighbour Ian :D, nice to know you here :D. I haven't own a 35mm adapter yet but definitely I believe it will be as challenging and as rewarding to have it for videoing wedding ceremony (as I am tired to those deep DOF camera especially HDV which reveals everything clear and sharp).

I guess you are probably chinese too so you would know how "chaos" & rushing the typical chinese wedding is. Thus an adapter along can't do the job, I believe a FF is a must for such dynamic and live environment. Also I must have at least two cameras working on the field, one without 35mm adapter for usual shot, one with 35mm adapter for interest composition and special moments.

I would have to get one adapter and try it out before I can really comment how good I can apply it to wedding video. I will let you know when I got one :-).

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Originally Posted by Chad Terpstra

I grabbed the chart pics and did a little roll-over image to compare the two in terms of sharpness and range. It's here: http://www.terpstar.com/test/Brevis-SGproTest/

I still think it's still a bit over-exposed but it may indicate something to do with how they handle highlights differently. The black square is the same value for both but the Brevis shoots up in values throughout the rest of the image. -Nice for low-light, but in high-contrast it might suffer. We'll just have to see how it fares with CF3 to know what the Brevis is ultimately capable of.

Chad what f-stop on the taking lens was being used? You will get best results (sharpness-wise) if stopping down on the lens a bit, say around f2.8 to f4. Great use of the "roll over" tool! That's really cool.

[Yves Fortin]

Hi Phil,

I think it will be very nice to see some footage of the Brevis with the new Cinefuse 3, to see how it handle the highlights and the dynamic range. I don't know if you already have one though.

[Ing Poh Hii]

Originally Posted by Chad Terpstra

I grabbed the chart pics and did a little roll-over image to compare the two in terms of sharpness and range. It's here: http://www.terpstar.com/test/Brevis-SGproTest/

I still think it's still a bit over-exposed but it may indicate something to do with how they handle highlights differently. The black square is the same value for both but the Brevis shoots up in values throughout the rest of the image. -Nice for low-light, but in high-contrast it might suffer. We'll just have to see how it fares with CF3 to know what the Brevis is ultimately capable of.

Oh Chad, I now understand what you try to test in this comparison, you have just done the RGB color sampling that I asked about in my previous reply. Thanks a lot for this, now I learn another way in reading resolution chart.. thankssss :D.

But sad news is, Brevis+CF1 does have less dynamic range... :<...

I have to put all my faith to CF3 now, Dennis, is it possible to buy Brevis with CF3 instead of CF1 ? And you haven't setup a bundle sales of Brevis + rod support + FF + mattebox in your e-commerce website yet... it would be good to know how much I can save if I purchase all in one go...

[Ben Winter]

I ordered a 5 power low contrast filter, a .9 ND filter today and the CF3 a couple weeks ago to use with my Brevis, I'll offer up some outdoor footage with, without filters, different lenses...as soon as it arrives.

[Phil Bloom]

Originally Posted by Yves Fortin

Hi Phil,

I think it will be very nice to see some footage of the Brevis with the new Cinefuse 3, to see how it handle the highlights and the dynamic range. I don't know if you already have one though.

Dennis Wood is sending me one. As soon as I do I will shoot the same scene with the three different CF screens