35mm adaptors look fake at DVinfo.net

James Adams · January 9th, 2007, 01:11 PM

Hi,

I don't mean to talk bad about these apators as I own a M2, but something about the way it blurrs the image just looks fake to me. It's kind of hard for me to describe but it almost looks like the fake type of blurr you would get using photoshop or something to blurr the background more in a photo. It just doesn't look the same as a 35mm DOF.

I know this is not really a big deal, because most people wouldn't notice it, but I know a few networks that really don't like to use them for this same reason.

I'm just wondering why it does this, I mean isn't just taking the image from the 35mm lens and projecting it onto the glass and back into the camera? so why would that make it look fake?

Any comments?

Wayne Kinney · January 9th, 2007, 01:52 PM

Hi,
I am really glad you brought this up. I've had the same observation from all the adapters even the SGpro and I used the same analogy (photoshop gaussian blur), until the we got the newest Rev2 GG, which seems to be much different. This is something I talked to Phil Bloom about when we did the shootout.

The blur effect or 'bokeh' render with the new GG seems to match film very well. The blurring of the fence here is a nice example:

http://www.rimeligok.no/pentax-fru.jpg

http://www.rimeligok.no/pentax-fru2.jpg

The guys that make the SGpro's GG are an external optics company specialised in optical filters, they know their stuff and this was part of their design. I actually dont know to much technical on it, but they tell me its down to the diffussion properties.

Ben Winter · January 9th, 2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Adams

Hi,

I don't mean to talk crap about these apators as I own a M2, but something about the way it blurrs the image just looks fake to me. It's kind of hard for me to describe but it almost looks like the fake type of blurr you would get using photoshop or something to blurr the background more in a photo. It just doesn't look the same as a 35mm DOF.

I know this is not really a big deal, because most people wouldn't notice it, but I know a few networks that really don't like to use them for this same reason.

I'm just wondering why it does this, I mean isn't just taking the image from the 35mm lens and projecting it onto the glass and back into the camera? so why would that make it look fake?

Any comments?

This is because the GG we use for 35mm adapter purposes doesn't diffuse completely; it can't of course, because the image has to pass through to the other side for the camera to pick up. This incomplete diffusion is what makes the bokeh look odd. 35mm film, of course, diffuses completely. Like Wayne has shown, however, there are ways to make the optics of the GG operate in such a way so as to more closely emulate 35mm film diffusion.

Wayne, those grabs look really impressive. I've always been blown away by the SGpro's images, but the box format has always thrown me off. I may end up selling my current adapter to switch to your side :)

James Adams · January 9th, 2007, 02:10 PM

Great, I wasn't sure if anyone would agree with this because I have never seemed to hear about it on this site before, or any for that matter. I've just heard the comments from people who shoot 35mm that they wouldnt use it cause it looks bad.

So it has something to do with the GG?

Maybe I'll have to post some side by side pics to better exlpain the problem

Wayne Kinney · January 9th, 2007, 02:12 PM

Yep, its to do with the way the GG diffuses the light.

James Adams · January 9th, 2007, 02:15 PM

I guess that explains a bit more. What exactly would the differences in the GG have to be to better the diffusion properties?

Steven Fokkinga · January 9th, 2007, 04:52 PM

I have to agree on this one, I also thought I was the only one to notice the 'gaussian blur'-effect, which has always kept me away from those adapters. But I am interested to see if the sgpro r2 has this 'fixed'. Are there already examples from the sgpro r2 and the canon a1, wayne?

Cheers!

Dennis Hingsberg · January 9th, 2007, 05:13 PM

James - what f-stop do you typically use when shooting as "open" or near open should really be avoided. Not the best image quality through the lens but more so I just find it's TOO MUCH depth of field, and that in itself just looks wrong!

Just curious about your settings, maybe that's contributing to your speculation?

Wayne Kinney · January 9th, 2007, 05:20 PM

Dennis has made a good point here, shooting wide open will also give a mushy bokeh.

Steven, no footage from the A1 as yet.

James Adams · January 9th, 2007, 05:42 PM

I've tried my lenses anywhere from T1.3-T16 and its not the too much depth of field that bothers me it's the way it blurrs the image.

Normally when you shoot film and lets say there are a couple bright lights in the background out of focus the small lights would turn into a larger glow and may even overlap eachother if they're close enough. With the 35mm adaptors it's more of a fake gaussian blur type thing and they lights out of focus in the background may diffuse a bit and expand, but not in the same way if you know what I mean.

Wayne Kinney · January 9th, 2007, 05:46 PM

This was shot with the SGpro Rev2 and HVX200:

http://www.sgpro.co.uk/lights.mov

It shows xmas tree lights out of focus, you can clearly see the clean sharp aperture blades, the disks overlap as you said above giving true bokeh like it would with real film.

I think this demo's what you are refering to.

Bob Hart · January 9th, 2007, 09:08 PM

If it is not film, it is not film, never wll be.

Properly managed, with all the other production value which goes with film imaging, like good lighting for starters, groundglass based relay imaging to video can get reasonably close, but it is and always will be, an emulation.

My personal spin is that it is an image aesthetic in its own right, another option in the toolset.

I have seen some film imaging in a multiplex cimema projection which looked just as fake by the time poor lighting, careless focus and digital intermediate had their way with it.

Donnie Wagner · January 9th, 2007, 09:22 PM

Wayne:
Your ground glass looks great, it seems it's your 35mm lens is producing what may be considered "poor bokeh", dark in the middle and bright hard edges. It may be because you shot the Christmas lights out of focus in the foregroun; out of focus but in the background may look better. Read about it here...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

See "Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3" halfway down the page

Ben Winter · January 9th, 2007, 09:57 PM

It's always been my understanding that the wording "poor bokeh" is just a labeling term and not actually a catigorization of the quality. I, for instance, find that particular bokeh very appealing. If I'm not mistaken, I've definately seen that type of bokeh before on the big screen in theaters. Although it's very common, one example I can remember of bokeh speculars on bigtime movies with hard, defined edges (which that site seems to regard as "poor bokeh") was the streetlights and light sources behind the closeups of Denzel Washington's head in "Inside Man" when he is in the SUV with Jodie Foster.

If the goal is what that website refers to as "good bokeh," then many of the people complaining of bokeh quality would be well satisfied with less diffusive focusing screens that many here have already discarded as poor diffusers with "bad bokeh." The Beattie screen, for instance, which has been downplayed on this thread (and for good reason) as a poor focusing screen for bokeh, actually renders the Fig. 3 bokeh as described on the webpage.

James Adams · January 9th, 2007, 11:40 PM

Yeah, I'm going to have to say that I like the look of figure one.

What we are trying to do is emulate the same look as what our own eyes would see, correct? Well, I can say for sure that mine see figure one when I intentionally make them go out of focus on a small light by making the light in the background. But when I do the same with that light and make it the forground it looks more like figure two. So I am going to have to disagree with that article.

What the 35mm adapters look like to me is more of what a 'good bokeh' is described in that article, which is not what the eye sees and that is why it looks strange to me.

January 9th, 2007, 01:11 PM	#1
James Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: san fransisco, CA Posts: 34	35mm adaptors look fake Hi, I don't mean to talk bad about these apators as I own a M2, but something about the way it blurrs the image just looks fake to me. It's kind of hard for me to describe but it almost looks like the fake type of blurr you would get using photoshop or something to blurr the background more in a photo. It just doesn't look the same as a 35mm DOF. I know this is not really a big deal, because most people wouldn't notice it, but I know a few networks that really don't like to use them for this same reason. I'm just wondering why it does this, I mean isn't just taking the image from the 35mm lens and projecting it onto the glass and back into the camera? so why would that make it look fake? Any comments?

January 9th, 2007, 01:52 PM	#2
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Hi, I am really glad you brought this up. I've had the same observation from all the adapters even the SGpro and I used the same analogy (photoshop gaussian blur), until the we got the newest Rev2 GG, which seems to be much different. This is something I talked to Phil Bloom about when we did the shootout. The blur effect or 'bokeh' render with the new GG seems to match film very well. The blurring of the fence here is a nice example: http://www.rimeligok.no/pentax-fru.jpg http://www.rimeligok.no/pentax-fru2.jpg The guys that make the SGpro's GG are an external optics company specialised in optical filters, they know their stuff and this was part of their design. I actually dont know to much technical on it, but they tell me its down to the diffussion properties. __________________ Thanks, Wayne.

January 9th, 2007, 02:12 PM	#5
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Yep, its to do with the way the GG diffuses the light. __________________ Thanks, Wayne.

January 9th, 2007, 05:13 PM	#8
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	James - what f-stop do you typically use when shooting as "open" or near open should really be avoided. Not the best image quality through the lens but more so I just find it's TOO MUCH depth of field, and that in itself just looks wrong! Just curious about your settings, maybe that's contributing to your speculation? __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

January 9th, 2007, 05:20 PM	#9
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Dennis has made a good point here, shooting wide open will also give a mushy bokeh. Steven, no footage from the A1 as yet. __________________ Thanks, Wayne.

January 9th, 2007, 02:10 PM	#4
James Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: san fransisco, CA Posts: 34	Great, I wasn't sure if anyone would agree with this because I have never seemed to hear about it on this site before, or any for that matter. I've just heard the comments from people who shoot 35mm that they wouldnt use it cause it looks bad. So it has something to do with the GG? Maybe I'll have to post some side by side pics to better exlpain the problem

January 9th, 2007, 02:15 PM	#6
James Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: san fransisco, CA Posts: 34	I guess that explains a bit more. What exactly would the differences in the GG have to be to better the diffusion properties?

January 9th, 2007, 04:52 PM	#7
Steven Fokkinga Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 204	I have to agree on this one, I also thought I was the only one to notice the 'gaussian blur'-effect, which has always kept me away from those adapters. But I am interested to see if the sgpro r2 has this 'fixed'. Are there already examples from the sgpro r2 and the canon a1, wayne? Cheers!

January 9th, 2007, 05:42 PM	#10
James Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: san fransisco, CA Posts: 34	I've tried my lenses anywhere from T1.3-T16 and its not the too much depth of field that bothers me it's the way it blurrs the image. Normally when you shoot film and lets say there are a couple bright lights in the background out of focus the small lights would turn into a larger glow and may even overlap eachother if they're close enough. With the 35mm adaptors it's more of a fake gaussian blur type thing and they lights out of focus in the background may diffuse a bit and expand, but not in the same way if you know what I mean.

January 9th, 2007, 05:46 PM	#11
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	This was shot with the SGpro Rev2 and HVX200: http://www.sgpro.co.uk/lights.mov It shows xmas tree lights out of focus, you can clearly see the clean sharp aperture blades, the disks overlap as you said above giving true bokeh like it would with real film. I think this demo's what you are refering to. __________________ Thanks, Wayne.

January 9th, 2007, 09:08 PM	#12
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	If it is not film, it is not film, never wll be. Properly managed, with all the other production value which goes with film imaging, like good lighting for starters, groundglass based relay imaging to video can get reasonably close, but it is and always will be, an emulation. My personal spin is that it is an image aesthetic in its own right, another option in the toolset. I have seen some film imaging in a multiplex cimema projection which looked just as fake by the time poor lighting, careless focus and digital intermediate had their way with it.

January 9th, 2007, 09:22 PM	#13
Donnie Wagner Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 135	Wayne: Your ground glass looks great, it seems it's your 35mm lens is producing what may be considered "poor bokeh", dark in the middle and bright hard edges. It may be because you shot the Christmas lights out of focus in the foregroun; out of focus but in the background may look better. Read about it here... http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm See "Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3" halfway down the page

January 9th, 2007, 09:57 PM	#14
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	It's always been my understanding that the wording "poor bokeh" is just a labeling term and not actually a catigorization of the quality. I, for instance, find that particular bokeh very appealing. If I'm not mistaken, I've definately seen that type of bokeh before on the big screen in theaters. Although it's very common, one example I can remember of bokeh speculars on bigtime movies with hard, defined edges (which that site seems to regard as "poor bokeh") was the streetlights and light sources behind the closeups of Denzel Washington's head in "Inside Man" when he is in the SUV with Jodie Foster. If the goal is what that website refers to as "good bokeh," then many of the people complaining of bokeh quality would be well satisfied with less diffusive focusing screens that many here have already discarded as poor diffusers with "bad bokeh." The Beattie screen, for instance, which has been downplayed on this thread (and for good reason) as a poor focusing screen for bokeh, actually renders the Fig. 3 bokeh as described on the webpage. __________________ BenWinter.com

January 9th, 2007, 11:40 PM	#15
James Adams Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: san fransisco, CA Posts: 34	Yeah, I'm going to have to say that I like the look of figure one. What we are trying to do is emulate the same look as what our own eyes would see, correct? Well, I can say for sure that mine see figure one when I intentionally make them go out of focus on a small light by making the light in the background. But when I do the same with that light and make it the forground it looks more like figure two. So I am going to have to disagree with that article. What the 35mm adapters look like to me is more of what a 'good bokeh' is described in that article, which is not what the eye sees and that is why it looks strange to me.