I'm not so sure on that, i've seen plenty of tests and with an HD cam. it looks beyond sexy, but with a SD cam, it doesn't look so great

What tests? ones with low quality SD cameras that make it look bad? I also suggest definitely doing the highest res HD camera (not HVX200) since resolving power makes a big difference in these adapters. id love to see light response curves before and after the 35mm adapter to see what effect they actually may have on latitude and curves as it appears many do have substantial effects.

Well, when I switch from HD to SD on my HVX, it looks identical in the viewfinder. The only difference in post is the frame size and the slightly better color of the DVCProHD codec.

Actually, the HVX might be the worst camera to test with, having sigificantly less resolution than the HD100 and XLH1. It's so much softer that it some of the defects of certain adapters will go unnoticed. Showreel magazine had an article in their last issue about the M2, where they pointed that out. I think (could be wrong) that the XLH1 has the highest actual resolution of the current range of prosummer cameras. If the footage looks clean and sharp on that, it should look good on anything.

I wouldn't bother testing anything SD, it's time is up.

They noticed better resolution with the XL H1, but didn't notice the purple/blue fringing?
They're likely just taking issue with pixel-shifting.
And if the camera doesn't see it, I'd say the "defect" isn't significant. It's like having a surface scratch on your lens that doesn't affect the image.

Actually, the HD100/200 might be the best test camera as several adapters have relays for the JVC lens mount (Letus35 and Mini35). And, afaik, there haven't been any significant image issues.

Right, if the camera doesnt see it then it isnt significant on that camera. In my experience the HVX looks nice but is way to soft to for someone with an XLH1 to say "oh that adapter looked sharp on the HVX200, i guess i wont lose any resolution my XLH1". So far I've found the Canon HV20 to have as much resolving power as the XLA1/H1 cameras and generally less chromatic abberation possibly because the lens doesnt try as hard (10x vs 20x). Testing on an HV20 capturing through hdmi could give a good reference quality since it will be higher resolution than anything youll likely be using your adapter on and can go with or without achromatic diopters (the use of which varies in the default setups of different adapters). Just an idea, i imagine people might take issue with testing adapters they plan to use on $10k cameras on a $1k camera, but as image quality issues go it is fairly neutral, and you know someone wont accidentally use the wrong scene settings since there arent any :) (just look at some of the shootouts that put cameras at arbitrary sharpness settings and then compare them on sharpness...) and it would keep a low entry point so it would be more feasible for many different adapter owners could contribute their results. People with XLH1's are too busy working and getting paid to pay off their camera to contribute to a community driven knowledge resource :P

Agreed, if none of the cameras see it...
The people quoted in Showreel said the HVX was easier to use with the M2 because the softness of the camera masked the edge softness of the adapter, and the HD100 was harder to use because the sharpness showed the flaw.

I'm of the mind that you test the adapter with the camera that makes it work the hardest and show it's weak points, rather than any camera that doesn't. That way no one is dissapointed.

My real opinion of course, is that if the viewer notices any flaws in the image, than you haven't nearly done enough work on your script. :)

The resolution issue is exactly why we have the XH-A1 and the HV20 here as our current primary test cameras. The XH-A1 fringing issue makes it a liability for critical CA testing, but otherwise, we like it. No question..the HV20 is cleaner with respect to CA.

Great idea.

I'd also like to know what kind of maufactures warranty you get.

And actually how proffesional they look, if a clients hanging around set they like to be reassured that their money is being spent wisley. There's no point turning up with a plastic looking adapter held together with home depot screws.

Is it possible to do an wiki on all the different DIY techniques, their success, and potential future performance? Sorting through these thousands, and thousands and thousands of posts is just too much for what could fit into an handful of pages.

Doh! Don't know how I missed that! :)
Thanks!

ok, ok, i see you're point , i was just trying to make a stance for myself, where there may be a difference between what an HD cam would look like than an SD cam.

Just everyone send me their HVX's, ill do some tests for this thing and i'll report them stolen in a few days..

Dude, nobody uses HVX's anymore... we all shoot on XDCAM EX's now.

Zacuto
http://www.zacuto.com/Zacuto_DOF_Adapter.htm

fanfare
 

I guess you guys aren't fans of the hvx. Bummer. I kind of dig mine. And most of that is just the relief of not having to deal with HDV anymore.

Back on topic...

I got an apefos after much stress and it was a disaster. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to share my experience and notes or device (if they're in LA) as they compile data. I last heard that it was out of production and Adriano had said on another site that he might return with another product but that the apefos had too many issues and was not available.

I have a brevis and quality is night and day between it and the apefos. For one thing, the brevis didn't come with scratched and chipped glass.