NEW Micro35 images and footage now available
 

Hey All,

We are wrapping up shooting with the newest micro35 Cinema Lens Adapter. We will be posting new stills, footage, etc. but for now you can see the adapter with the Sony Z1 HD Cam:

http://www.redrockmicro.com/micro35_hd.htm

Stay tuned to this forum for updates including footage, stills, etc.


Brian

Sample micro35 HD footage
 

Here is the link to the sample HD footage (it is the last one on the samples page titled "Dancing"):

http://www.redrockmicro.com/samples.html

Couple of things to note:

1. shot at twilight

2. There is a lot of artifacting from the heavy HD compression (example; green backgrounds look almost posterized to me). I think it may be a Vegas thing - we're checking it out.

3. the little girl bumped her head - it's a butterfly bandaid

Cheers

Brian

Sample micro 35 stills
 

Finally, here are some stills from the footage:

http://www.redrockmicro.com/micro35_hd_stills.htm


Cheers

Brian

That effect could be a combo of two things. One being the portion of the footage that is out of focus and converting it to Cineform HD (which I would guess is your method). A good way to make sure it isn't from the conversion is to check out the original MPG2 file on your computer and also export the footage to a monitor.

Otherwise, looking great. I just called up my buddy after viewing that footage so we can start building our's on Tuesday. We use a FX1 and can't wait to try out the Micro35 on it. We have all the parts needed to start minus one.

Brian,
I have seen the clip. Looks OK but quite a bit of light loss for that time of the day... what aperture was it shoot at? 2.8? Also the stills from footage... could you explain how a poor 720/480 (webcam) like this:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album12/felix5?full=1
aparently shows more details than a 1280/720 frame from HD footage such as this?:
http://www.redrockmicro.com/micro35_hd_stills.htm

The hd frame should have had three times more details (I think) and the hair looks a bit soft (to me)

Was it the 28-70 lens? or was it not focused properly?
How about a rezolution chart? Frames from footage. That will clear the issue.
BTW, the lens used on the cat footage was 1.4/35 Nikkor. (shoot at 1.4!)

Hey Dan,


These images are reduced about 4x, which would explain the resolution loss. We had a couple of challenges on this shoot - one of them unfortunately was a couple of missing screws (you can see it one of the stills), which may have contributed to some focus issues.


[updated]
Here are some details regarding the shoot:

nikkor 105mm 2.5 lens

The Hd cam was set to F5.2

8PM CST

Gain was on 'H'

That wouldn't decrease detail and make the picture soft though. And I was thinking more about the area of green you were concerned about. I highly doubt it's like that in the original frames from the Z1U. Would it be possible to have an original MPG2 screenshot posted?

The original footage is still across the country, so I hope to get that soon. Jamey - who has it right now - says he doesn't see this on the original footage, as you suspected. One thing we also learned is HD post is quite different as well.

Brian

Which can lead us to think it's the WMV compression.

Yeah - that's a possibility. We are going to look for someone who is more skilled at HD post and see what they can do.

Thanks

one thing. What a shamefull marketing strategy from the micro35. The pics are really not inspiring. LOoks cheap to me and doesn't make me wanna investigate the site.

new micro35 footage redux
 

Hey all,

We shot some more footage this weekend - we learned a lot from our previous (mis)adventures with the Z1, and managed to turn off the most problematic settings.

Here's some new HD footage of the micro35 with the Z1U:

http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/...adingSmall.mov

Production notes:

Shot between 6-7 PM
Zony Z1U at 60i.
Two lenses: primary is a nikon 50mm f. 1.4, secondary a nikon 85mm f. 1.8
Apertures: 35mm lens was left wide open. Z1 aperture ranged from 3 to 6.2

No post other than the 180 degree flip.


I also uploaded a sample uncompressed tif (it's big - around 6MB) at:

http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage....rdenstill1.tif

Feedback welcome.

The coorect link for the .tif image is:

http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/...rdenstill1.tif

shawn, thanks for the links, man. Watching them now......let me see....NIce photo there. VEry warm and real. The video is amazing. Who is the lady at the end. I want to shoot a video with her on a beach in Spain (galicia). NIce warm colours and you can see everything is coming together. Very smooth. Nice.

Jose - that is my wife. I will ask her if she is willing to shoot in Spain with you, though I'm not sure how I would feel about that! Plus she's SAG, so it'll cost you :)

Also a couple other high res stills for your consideration (from a different part of the shoot):

http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/Z1U/bottles.tif
http://www.redrockmicro.com/footage/Z1U/flowers.tif

Brian

Are you sure about the "high res" ??? Roses are totaly unsharp, and the bottles are very soft. I resized your tif downto 50% and then enlarged it to 200%. Guess what happened ? ... nothing - looks same :(

It's either not focused or 35 mm adapter has another function, it ads HD to SD conversion, at no extra cost.

Could you guys shoot resolution chart with adapter to see if it do HD, SD, or some other resolution figures.

Radek

It does seem like it causes some resolution loss, but until someone runs a rez test it's hard to say for certain.

I agree. Resolution chart is in the works.

Do it... Look here : http://test.datriware.com/test.jpg. I took your bottle scene, and changed resolution of left side downto 50% (512x384). Now you can compare left side to right side...

I think the difference should be more visible... like : http://test.datriware.com/test2.jpg.

Also the shots on your page (as someone said here before) looks cheap :(

More pixels doesn not mean more resolution... ;)

Yes, the Micro35 images are much softer than straight from the camera. Also seeing things in motion is another thing.

How about that anouncement at the top of the page?

which announcement, on which page?

(sorry if I'm missing the obvious but I couldn't figure out what you're talking about). Thx.

I do not feel confortable at all to point but... (unless I am missing something)
here it is:
>>>>>>>>>The Micro35 Project (CLOSED -- see anouncement)<<<<<<<<
.................................................................................................... ....
>>>Please direct all Micro35-related discussions to their official forum at this link:
http://www.redrockmicro.com/forum
Chris Hurd
San Marcos, TX<<<<<<<<<<<<

Dan - I'm not sure what you feel uncomfortable about - that thread was the original DIY micro35 thread - Chris pointed out it is no longer active on DVInfo because it was moved to our redrockmicro.com site. The conversation didn't end, it simply moved :)

Kyle - I'm not sure to what you are referring re: seeing things in motion?

Also, I am back down to the DVX but I will shoot some resolution charts this weekend. Thanks again for all the feedback.

Cheers

Brian

Dan

As you may already know, DV Info Net was the first home for the Micro35. You might say it was born here, just like the ReelStream / Andromeda project. These guys have decided to run their own discussion forum on their own site, and they have every right to do so. I am not going to compete with them for message board traffic over their own product. The proper thing for me to do was to shut down our old Micro35 forum and refer everybody to their new home elsewhere on the web. I have done just that. Please don't try to read anything more into it than that. Hope this helps,

OK, guys, sorry, my fault.
Is not hard to tell (by some of the pics on my site) that I am up-side-down (;-)<

Not a criticism so much as a heads-up, Brian. At the end of the garden footage, you can still see some vignetting in the bottom left hand corner - it could be a shadow, but it looks suspicious.

Seeing the sample footage where the still came from is a much better example of the quality. Judging from that still frame doesn't compliment the actual footage. That bes what I meants.

hmmm, have to agree those stills look very soft, maybe you've got some axial vibration in there?


in fact I've yet to see HD grabs which approach the sharpness of the crude tests I did months ago - have a look at the little white flowerheads in this tiff

http://s42.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0...E26EALWWRXB9CS

Hey All -

Kyle - that grab *was* from the footage.

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

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?

Yes, but the stills from movie should show details, if you cant see it on still, you will not see it in movie either.

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...

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.

Yes, the judge and freedom is most powerfull thing we have :) Personally, I do not like showing us Z1 stills, while argue its high res, because it was shooted on Z1... I'm following M35 since the footage with small girl and guitar. It moved pretty much, but unfornately more in desing than in function...