|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 5th, 2005, 03:45 PM | #31 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 293
|
Hey All -
Quote:
Mandy - I saw the shadow - which what it is. If you look at frame 16:17 or so you will see corners have no vignetting. But I realize shadows are tricky. Chris - thanks for clearing that up John - You have a great subject with good detail to capture - we will have to pick better flowers next time (ours were a gift). When I look at your still compared to the gardenstill (http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/...rdenstill1.tif) , I do think it holds its own in detail. I can see small freckles in her face, individual hairs, etc. and there isn't the grain present in yours. Regarding sample footage, rez tests, focus tests, etc. We are going to see Barry this week to drop off a unit and have him give you an unbiased third party opinion, have him shoot rez charts etc. to address your questions. We appreciate all the feedback, and for pushing us to make our product better. One thing we have done is enhance the achromat to a larger diameter, which will add about 20-25% more resolution. Barry will get this one (and the one micro35 customers will get) and we think it will deliver even better results. This also speaks to another benefit: the micro35's modular design. As we enhance the product, these enhancements can be dropped in to the micro35 for both new and existing customers). It was important for us to develop a design where you could drop in enhancements - not a static "locked down" design where any enhancements would require you to upgrade to a new unit. Brian
__________________
========================== Brian Valente Redrock Microsystems |
|
June 5th, 2005, 05:44 PM | #32 | ||
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 274
|
Quote:
Quote:
My post was referring to that one in which I failed to quote. Your TIFFs are from VIDEO which is MOTION which would be a better judge of the product than a still. Does this only make sense to me? |
||
June 6th, 2005, 12:08 AM | #33 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Czech republic, Prague
Posts: 159
|
Quote:
http://test.datriware.com/motion/f01.jpg http://test.datriware.com/motion/f09.jpg http://test.datriware.com/motion/f10.jpg http://test.datriware.com/motion/f12.jpg See the details ? And its compressed JPGs...
__________________
Daves At the beginning there was an idea, then the ambition came and the idea became to be a dream... The Satisfied Dream => http://film.datriware.com |
|
June 6th, 2005, 02:53 AM | #34 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 274
|
Yes I'm following that thread also. I was not trying to bring your adapter into this to compare. Both have their benefits and problems. But watching the footage of the Micro35 instead of checking out a still would be a better judge. That is all I am saying. You can take a still from any 35mm movie and you can say it has too much grain, softness, etc. Seeing it in motion is another story. Not trying to start an argument here either, so please do not take it that way.
|
June 6th, 2005, 03:07 AM | #35 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Czech republic, Prague
Posts: 159
|
Quote:
__________________
Daves At the beginning there was an idea, then the ambition came and the idea became to be a dream... The Satisfied Dream => http://film.datriware.com |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|