|
Guerilla35 footage - uncompressed!
I am curious about learning anything I can about DOF devices/adapters, both static and dynamic. I download every test picture and every piece of sample footage that I find, and save them all, for my own learning. I am not a pro or semi-pro; I have a tiny camera I use to film my family and friends, nothing more. I simply want to make my memories look better than the old horrible "home camcorder movie."
Although I am not currently in the market for a G35, I had the opportunity to view their raw test footage. I don't know the guys and before viewing it I hadn't decided that I loved or hated their product or themselves. To be frank, I was a bit skeptical. I must admit that the first time I viewed their site I figured, "Here are some guys who are having a machine shop make them an anodized aluminum tube, and are using somebody's off-the-shelf GG or screen, and trying to make money on it." I assumed it would have SOME grain but not a lot. So I was very curious to view their footage, as many people have claimed that it must have grain that is simply not visible due to the compression in the sample footage available. All I can say is: Wow! There is no grain, hotspot, or vignetting, whatsoever. None. Not in bright light, not in "flare" situations, not in contrasty situations, and not in dark situations. They redefine the DIY DOF device community's phrase, "You are there!" Many people may be skeptical but in my brief conversations with Jonathan I learned just how much work and how many months of time these guys have put into development: a LOT. More so than I have seen out of the most prolific of DV Info.net contributors. I think the G35 guys have arguably made two mistakes and these are theirs to make: 1) Maybe they should have posted small clips of uncompressed footage on their site, or using rapidshare.de, etc. 2) Perhaps their site should have mentioned the myriad combinations of optical elements they've tried, and the fact that they are having elements custom made for them. I think this would have quelled a lot of the instant nay-sayer attitude that a some people have about this device. It's ironic because those same people haven't seen the uncompressed footage so they really shouldn't decide one way or the other in the first place. Jonathan mentioned that they have upgraded their host and that some uncompressed footage will be available very shortly. BP |
Welcome to the board Jonath...Bill (joke)
|
I get your joke and I take it with a grain of salt but it's an insult nonetheless. I'm a real person and I went out of my way to share an unbiased opinion of a product I am not even going to purchase any time in the near future as far as I can tell.
My intent was to show people that if you work hard enough, a static device can create grainless images. Jonathan and Doug have proven that. Shame if my good intentions were met with cynicism. If Jonathan were such a shameless promoter of his own product as to stoop to fake screennames then he'd have started by putting up more than a barebones website. The product pics and screencaps aren't even up on the guerilla35.com site(!), they're tucked away in the forum. edit: I should have said, "My intent was to show people that if you work hard enough, a static device can create grainless images, [or buy a solution if you don't have time or interest to devote to developing your own." |
Bill:
I surmise that your feeling is that shallow depth of field alone will transform what would otherwise look like an "old horrible home camcorder movie...?". Perhaps that "tiny" camera might have something to do with it--not to say that the right camera will sudddenly make everything look like a Hollywood movie, but perhaps the ability to shoot at 24 or 30 fps might make at least as much difference, if you like that look. Your honest assessment of your shooting ability "not a pro or a semi-pro" is appreciated. It might be worth mentioning that for uncontrolled circumstances, it is pretty tough to shoot documentary (i.e. home movie style) and maintain focus onesef with 35mm optics. In other words, be prepared for a lot of soft stuff if using long enough lenses to really see the shallow depth of field, unless your subject is pretty static. Also consider the added bulk and potential physical awkwardness of a setup outfitted in this manner. It may become harder to hold the camera steady with the added weight, especially at longer focal lengths (the same ones that will take the most advantage of the shallow depth of field), and may be more of a burden to take along on certain events or activities. Finally there is the light loss, meaning that events that could have been captured with the camera by itself now would require supplemental lighting to get a useable image. I'm certainly not trying to talk you out of anything--perhaps just reminding that the beauty of a 35mm optical path comes with a certain set of penalties and compromise. |
That's a pretty big leap to surmise ("assume" is more accurate) that I would think a shallow DOF would transform what would otherwise look like an "old horrible camcorder movie." As I said, "I simply want to make my memories look better than the old horrible "home camcorder movie." Now that I'm using my adapter, they do look better.
I do however think it's clear that your feeling is that 24 or 30fps might make as least as much difference as a shallow-DOF-adapter. It won't. Have you ever used one? I have seen lots of 24 and 30 fps films sans adapter and the biggest difference lies in the DOF by far, not the frame rate. I guess I appreciate the spirit of your post, although it seems you are anti-static adapter, which, again, I wonder whether you've used one. I've already built my adapter and I'm using it happily. The added light loss is almost nil - I have done tests with and without the adapter - and the bulk is unimportant to me as I have not built a super-long tube. My camera overall is just barely longer than my old Sony Handycam. Other than that a DOF adapter is a lot nicer than you make it out to be. You should try one yourself! Anyway, most people who would be using the G35 are pro's or semi-pro's (or wannabe pro's) and that is who I am sharing this info for. I simply mentioned my own camera and use of it, to give some background about myself. I find that when you post a favorable review of something, the nay-sayers and people accusing you of being a shill (or of being someone else posting under another name) come out of the woodwork, so the background on myself was to at least give some depth (pardon the pun, considering the topic ;-) ) to an otherwise empty name. |
Bill, I think you took Charles' comments the wrong way. And if you had been on here a little longer you'd realise Charles has a tad bit of experience with those lensy recordy things we hold in our hands to take pictures with.
I also would also argue that, in my experience, the film cadence of 24fps or 25fps (in my case) has WAY more to do with a film, or should I say "non video" look than the DoF. Of course this is personal preference, but 50/60i SCREAMS video to me, but deep Depth of Field doesn't necessarily. Back on topic, I'm really interested in some of these adapters that are being made and interested to see some footage from these guys. I'm looking at investing in one of these things myself. Aaron |
I'm aware Charles has a lot of experience, as I looked through this old posts. But nowhere did I see him having used a static DOF device. Did I not look back far enough?
As far as taking his comments the wrong way, I'm sure he didn't mean ill, and his tone was very kind, nor did I take them as an attack. But I do disagree with the points he has made. This board has a real woody for 24p, as is also evidenced by your comment: "I also would also argue that, in my experience, the film cadence of 24fps or 25fps (in my case) has WAY more to do with a film, or should I say "non video" look than the DoF. " I never said anything of the sort that I was interested in a film look or non video look. All I said was I want my videos to look better. Mission accomplished, that is why I am still using my static DOF device. :) I agree wholeheartedly that this thread should stay on topic (if anyone wants to add anything) and thank you for pointing that out. I simply am very impressed that this soon-to-be-released product works as well as it does. So it's nice to see that A) anybody who wants to just plunk down for one can have a solution, and B) if you don't want to or can't afford to pop for one, there is a lot that can be done if you persevere. |
Bill,
Did you say you built a static adapter? I would love to see it and some screen grabs! Also the g35 guys don't have a price for their unit - do you have any idea what it is? The static vs moving debate shouldn't stop anyone from trying either. Whatever works, I say. That is why this board thrives. |
For anyone who has carefully analyzed any footage from G35 will see that is A) The best static imaging quality footage to date, and B) You can still see static grain on the footage if you are being hyper critical and very picky.
When you get to a certain point of quality with this DIY approach, just jump in and go for it. In other words: Go buy the Guerilla 35 - www.guerilla35.com Get the Micro35 - www.micro35.com Go build your own - www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=38743 Do it today, and in the meantime, figure out what you're going to do with it when you get it, because that's more important than anything else that anyone is talking about here. Hopefully the ambition is to make videos, movies, and tell stories. Make as many as you can, and get ready for when something better comes along in the coming years, or you achieve such success that you can shoot on film or high end HD (Dalsa, Arriflex, Kinetta, Panavision). Yes!! Peace, steev www.holyzoo.com/content/35mm/ |
Bill:
I can well see that based on the first response to your initial post that you were on the defensive; can't say as I blame you. It didn't sound like you had already built your unit, so my intention was to possibly throw a little counterpoint into the mix--I'd hate to see someone go through all that work and then find out that the results were not what they thought they were going to be. Not that the system doesn't work, but that having shallow depth of field wasn't the Holy Grail. I read plenty of threads in which members have built themselves this or that rig and can't figure out why their footage doesn't immediately resemble studio-quality. Interestingly, I find that there are many members of this board who have a real "woody" for shallow DoF--(13,000 posts in "Alternative Imaging Methods"); I hear very few individuals claiming a preference for deep focus, whereas there is plenty of debate over the "stutter" of 24p vs 60i. As someone who implements both shallow DoF and 24p whenever possible (yes, I do in fact own a Mini35), if you put a gun to my head and said I could only use one tool of the two, I would go with the 24p. 60i with shallow DoF doesn't do much for me, at least not enough to justify the "hassle" of the adaptor. It's a personal choice, and I have no argument with anyone who feels otherwise. I will point out that I haven't used a static adaptor, so I wasn't aware that there wasn't a light loss, and that the system is compact. Those are great assets! When a production model of this type of system appears, I look forward to evaluating it. On the grammar side of things--I do stand by the use of "surmise", and I think it wasn't a big leap to say that video is "transformed" by the use of the adaptor--obviously enough to elicit a "wow" from you! But I do appreciate your challenging my choices, I'd much rather debate language than camera technology! All the best, |
So I read this thread I posted on yesterday. I made a joke as first reply.
I think we are a bit tricked, although I don't know why. Someone new starts with explaining he only films his family with a tiny camera. He's not a pro and he's interested in learning about DOF machines. Than he's insulted by the very fist comment, my stupid joke, and begins to debate every suggestion people make. Not in a nice way I'd say. |
Super Troll, I'd say.
|
Oh, I don't think so. No troll dares to set foot on these boards; no troll that does ever lasts very long. As the owner of this joint, I'd really prefer that we always give new folks such as Bill the benefit of the doubt and *please* do not always assume the worst with regard to intentions. We want to keep this place fresh. I'm the only one here with the authorization to feel jaded.
Honestly I have to admit to feeling just slightly miffed over the fact that the Guerilla 35 was not born here. This forum is supposed to be the place where all good concepts come from, but G35 started somewhere else; we had no part in it. Does that make me just a tad bit jealous? Sure it does. But it doesn't take anything away from the G35; I'm sure it's really "all that" and more. I just wish we had germinated it like we did the Micro35 thingy and the Reel Stream Andromeda. Y'all please feel free to discuss Guerilla 35 all you want here. There are no constrictions on good healthy discussion topics, even if we didn't invent the dang thing. Full speed ahead, |
I don't think he's a troll; the product actually looks pretty cool and pretty innovative. That said....
Citizen Kane used rear projection to get a deeper DOF, as well as fast stock, stopped down lenses, and wide angle lenses. Did it look jaw-droppingly amazing? Yes.... Wes Anderson shoots with a very deep DOF. Did Royal Tenenbaums look pretty? Hmm....let me think. It's 3 things that determine "film look": 24fps, dynamic range, and depth of focus. In my mind, all three are important, and depth of focus isn't everything. However, the ultra-wide DOF of video makes blown highlights look a lot worse (they don't bloom; they look sharp and awful.) So if I can use a DOF adapter to smooth the background out, and make the foreground "pop" I will, although it alone won't make my footage look like film. And I plan to buy one this summer to do just that. Edited for general coherency. |
Matthew I couldn't agree with you more. The softness of film and the GG makes perfect sense because it tends to get rid of the sharpness or hardness of video.
Chris, thanks for the input. I am glad that you, as the owner of this forum, support and endorse other products even though your bro is in the same business! Kudos to you! (James is your brother, right? Maybe?) |
Quote:
Hurd is kind of a rare name in the U.S. but it's pretty common in the U.K. |
Hello,
No troll here. You can check my IP address (I assume it is logged). And I will point out that I have yet to see a single G35 troll pop up anywhere so you should hold them in high regard. Like I already said, if they were such rabid self-promoters as to create a fake identity, they would have started at the easiest spot to promote: improving their own website. My hat is off to Chris Hurd for being a big enough person to admit his feelings of "I wish that were born here". I feel the same way! Though it's become clear to me that the G35 guys didn't stumble across a magic combination that we all didn't see; they developed theirs by working their rears off. So I don't feel so bad about not having had the same results yet. :) Matthew has some points although, again, they are somewhat off topic (<<It's 3 things that determine "film look">>) as I am not trying to achieve a film look, and the point of this thread was simply to share some feedback on someone else's DOF device. Oscar, you are awfully defensive considering your only contribution to this thread was to post something you admit was a stupid joke. So my reaction was not out of line. As far as my supposedly refuting everything else anyone says, that's a gross exaggeration and shows how colored your view of my posts is. The reality is that I agreed with one person and disagreed with another. Scroll up and see for yourself :) As far as disagreeing, am I not allowed to have my own opinion? Charles, thanks for your reply, it was pretty mellow. As we just witnessed, it's rare to find anybody on a forum who doesn't start to get hostile with anybody not seeing things their way, or to find anybody who doesn't react with suspicion and start hollering "troll" when they see anyone giving a thumbs-up to a company. So, I appreciated reading both your replies as they were civil and not paranoid. I agree that lots of people are interested in shallow DOF, and that fewer people are into 24 fps. It's my opinion that shallow DOF creates a bigger change as far as the layperson is concerned, when talking about interlaced video on a 4:3 television. And I agree that 24 fps, especially progressively shot footage, makes a big difference. I just think my viewers, viewing the stuff I shoot, wouldn't notice it as much as shallow DOF. So given that clarification, I think we actually agree. My first movies with my untuned DOF device had my viewers saying "Wow, that looks like an old 8mm movie!" I don't know whether it was the grain or the fuzzy, vignetted image. :) But I am reasonably sure that if I had shot it in 24 fps without a DOF device, none of my viewers would have noticed anything better about it. I can understand you thinking I was one of the many who wonder why their footage wasn't magically transformed by simple lens improvement. And I can understand why you figured I was after film look: pretty much everyone else IS! But, I am willing to settle for what I get, because I need a camera that is very small so it's not obtrusive on vacation or at gatherings. Even a Sony VX2000/2100 is way too big for me. Speaking of compact size- Charles, the G35 is bigger than my device, at least for the time being. I made mine small enough to be compact, at the expense of image quality. If I were shooting movies or documentaries I would use whatever size device I needed to, though. What got me started was trying to capture a shot where I drew the viewer's attention from one family member to another. We were all sitting around a table, and because I couldn't "rack" another person into focus, it made for one long, less captivating shot without a nice flow to it. I started looking into it on the internet and found the mediachance site, and then James Hurd's, and I was off and running. Speaking of my setup, somebody in an earlier post said he felt tricked because I have a tiny camera and so on, as if that meant we couldn't be just as interested as those with big cameras. Are these 3-chip Panasonics the underclass or what? GS400's can shoot some really nice images. If you don't believe me look at Dan Diaconu's setup. Also I have seen nice shots from Rok, J. Provast, and others. Mandy, yes, I have an adapter as you will see in my previous posts. I came here looking to give and receive information on the subject. So I would be happy to email you a screen grab. It is really nothing to write home about. That is why I am still looking to compare notes with other people, as in my previous posts. Oh, to answer your other question, the pricing info I got on the G35 was from reading their forums. There are very few posts on there so you can read it all in just a few minutes. Again, if the G35 guys were such aggressive self-marketers to go as far as trolling, they would have at least put up some product pictures or some pricing on their site instead of just leaving it buried in their forums. But anyone who knows personalities knows the inventor type is good at sweat and persistence, and is not as good at self-promoting, politicking, etc. In business school it's taught that the old saw about "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" is untrue. Many examples are given of inferior products beating superior products in the marketplace, because the hardworking inventor personality typically has little taste for wearing the salesperson or marketing person hat, whereas the born salesperson/promoter usually doesn't care what they are selling; they just want to sell, sell, sell, and make money. That is why the stereotypes exist of the used car salesperson who makes good money, and of the broke, genius inventor who hated bothering with sales stuff like promoting or buying advertisements or dealing with the public. I hope I either spurred some people into continuing development on their own devices ("look at what can be done!"), or to investigate buying the G35, as I think it has earned a look. If that's too much for anyone, I can go back to lurking and leeching info without sharing! ;-) Thanks for reading! BP :) |
Quote:
I looked at their website, the results are quite nice. Hope you contine to enjoy your system! |
Bill,
I'm not defensive at all. I agree with Chris Hurd that one should give new people the benefit of the doubt. But surely new people who don't know 'old' people sense of humor should give them the benefit of the doubt too. So I didn't like you taking my post as an insult. I found it humorous that someone who presents himself as an amateur with a tiny camera starts to promote a product like a pro. And I still find it humorous that someone with a tiny camera starts to debate the difference with a pro or semi-pro 24p camera. You can disagree with everything you want, no problem, I just find the context funny, but this has come out as a weird discussion. |
No need to defend yourself! We believe you. I'm excited by the prospect of using real lenses, too. I love manual f-stops and everything. I feel like I'm in control on a much more direct level.
One thing. Super 8 has a very DEEP depth of focus; similar to a 1/3'' CCD. (My 8mm camera uses an f1.2 lens and 8mm is a little bigger so inbetwen a 1/3'' and a 1/2'' CCD DOF maybe, but close to 1/3''.) It was probably the graininess that made your footage look like super 8, and also the fact that it's easy to shoot super 8 out of focus by accident. The flare effect of mini-35 devices does seem to give an organic softness and grainines (which, to be honest, I don't want since I can replicate it in post but I can't gain extra resolution in post.) Also, super 8 is often shot at 16-18fps I believe so it should be ultra-studdery. Nonetheless, I'm impressed you got a mini35 style adapter working on your own (I have no idea how I'd get one working well) and it probably creates a really cool looking effect. |
Hello,
First off, thank you Bill. Bill has e-mailed me a number of times over the past weeks with some questions in regards to his adapter. He has put a bunch of time and effort (as has many of you) into building a static adapter so naturally he was stoked to see that we were making one that was producing a pretty good image. I think it's cool that he is putting such effort into making cool home videos. Rock on Bill! Quote:
We have been developing for 8 or so months. This forum rocks and we give much credit to it for its open discussion. When it all comes down to it. These are just pieces of metal and glass we stick on our video cameras. No need to get too fired up about them. :) Now if we could only develop a magical adapter that could make our actors better... More on that later. |
Thanks, Matthew. That is the most interesting post I have read so far on this topic. I have never used an 8mm film camera, only an oooooold Sony camcorder, so I was not aware of those things. Now that you point out about the super deep DOF and very slow frame rate of Super 8, I guess it must have been the out of focus and the grain that my viewers were referring to.
Don't be too impressed. My adapter is not mini35 style. It is a static adapter. Spacers, GG, macro, and epoxy. Since I use it as a travel camera, and I shoot so much tape during my outings, I thought a static one would be more appropriate (less weight, more compact, no batteries). Oscar, <<I'm not defensive at all.>> I rest my case! :) |
Quote:
Well it certainly isn't rare *here* despite what your first impressions may be. DV Info Net was founded on a flame-free principle. Our real-names policy goes a long way toward keeping the trolls and flames at bay, but every once in awhile, some flames escape, and that's an unfortunate side effect of having an online community that has grown exponentially to its current size 305,000 messages in 40,000 topics from 16,000 members. Our volunteer moderators do their best to keep flaming in check. As a new member, you can can certainly do your part in assisting with our flame-free policy by rigidly following these guidelines:
Welcome to DV Info Net -- not your average message board, |
Hear hear! You sound like a pretty exemplary moderator. Terrific, keep up the good work. The world could use more of you, that's for sure.
Thanks! BP :) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:22 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network