Letus35 Sony HDR-FX1 sample footage

Kyle Edwards · November 20th, 2005, 09:22 PM

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8940/0400km.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8572/0608iv.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4707/0908sr.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8319/1000ga.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/734/1106vr.jpg

I replaced the GG with another material and feel that this test is much sharper than the previous. Also the loss of light is very small. Compared to the previous GG these images are much better IMO but compared to the camera naked, they of course are not as sharp. I am not sure if you can achieve the same results of sharpness as the defaul lens. The default lens also keeps everything in focus where this 50mm lens has very selective focusing making the image look soft overall, even in sharp areas. My eyes are also trying to focus the image on a very small screen.

Out of the two problems, GG and macro filter, one is half way gone and the other needs work. Quene emailed me about a solution to the macro lens for the FX1 but I need a tad bit more information until I work on that.

Cody Dulock · November 20th, 2005, 10:08 PM

theres alot of chromatic abberation that a new "close up" type glass could get rid of perhaps. then again it could be your lens.

A.J. Briones · November 20th, 2005, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Edwards

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8940/0400km.jpg
I replaced the GG with another material and feel that this test is much sharper than the previous. Also the loss of light is very small. Compared to the previous GG these images are much better IMO but compared to the camera naked, they of course are not as sharp.

hi kyle. do you mind sharing what material you used?

Bill Porter · November 21st, 2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Edwards

Then kiss DOF good-bye.

You've got it backward. You have depth of field either way, just not much when you have the adapter.

What you really meant was "kiss shallow DOF goodbye."

Eric Bilodeau · November 21st, 2005, 12:02 PM

I did an entire shoot on Z1u with a letus 35 (yesterday) I will post some footage soon but it looks great.

Eric

Kyle Edwards · November 21st, 2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cody Dulock

theres alot of chromatic abberation that a new "close up" type glass could get rid of perhaps. then again it could be your lens.

I believe it is the macro filter or the default FX1 lens. I'm thinking macro filter the most. Also the edges are out of focus, that is really bothering me more than anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.J. Briones

hi kyle. do you mind sharing what material you used?

Piece of plastic with a grid pattern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Porter

What you really meant was "kiss shallow DOF goodbye."

kisses

Kyle Edwards · January 2nd, 2006, 07:41 PM

http://www.flmpro.com/samples/60mm_test.avi

My last test with the Letus35 since I'm picking up the latest flip image.

This test was with only natural light and a Nikon 60mm 2.8 lens. Once I recieve the new unit I will post alot more samples.

Ben Winter · January 2nd, 2006, 08:02 PM

I spy dirt! lol...Kyle what is filtered/original? Maybe I'm just remedial and I'm missing something obvious...is that ND filter vs. non-ND? I'm confused.

Bob Hart · January 2nd, 2006, 10:10 PM

Kyle.

The finer the groundglass, you may begin to get some aerial image through which will be most apparent with out of focus overbright high contrast objects in background, sort of similar I guess to halation artifact in film images. You get a hazy area around a slightly sharper but still indistinct object.

I have been getting a similar defect with a 5 micron dressed groundglass.

There may be a bit of chromatic separation there on the right portion of the image of the pumpkin. Is there a possibility that after being dismantled, the close-up/relay/macro lens has become no longer centred to the camcorder's own lens centre axis, or skewed slightly.

The plaster pot stand seems to be a bit stretched on the outer edge of the image. This suggests to me that the diameter of the close-up/macro/relay lens needs to be wider for this particular camera. You may find that if you have any zoom left, you may need to go in a little closer, perhaps sacrificing a little resolution off the groundglass in favour of being more in the centre of the relay lens to avoid the edge defect.

If the lens itself is inferior, then I would expect to see more muddied colours and chomatic separation across the whole image. Unfortunately none of you images have bright objects on the left side or upper and lower edges to enable that to be seen.

You may find that the only solutions are careful composition and lighting to stay away from the conditions which aggravate it.

Don't take too much notice of my comments as they may well send you off down a dead end.

Kyle Edwards · January 2nd, 2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Winter

I spy dirt! lol...Kyle what is filtered/original? Maybe I'm just remedial and I'm missing something obvious...is that ND filter vs. non-ND? I'm confused.

On the left is the raw footage, the right is slightly touched up. And yes, plenty of dust speckles got in when I changed the "gg" again. The latest footage is a whole different "gg". I'm pretty happy with the replacement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Hart

The finer the groundglass, you may begin to get some aerial image through which will be most apparent with out of focus overbright high contrast objects in background, sort of similar I guess to halation artifact in film images. You get a hazy area around a slightly sharper but still indistinct object.

I have been getting a similar defect with a 5 micron dressed groundglass.

Is this concerning the older footage or the latest I posted?

Quote:

There may be a bit of chromatic separation there on the right portion of the image of the pumpkin. Is there a possibility that after being dismantled, the close-up/relay/macro lens has become no longer centred to the camcorder's own lens centre axis, or skewed slightly.

I guess this is towards the older footage. The unit was probably off center because getting the unit screwed onto the camera perfectly lined up can be a pain. For simple tests I mount the adapter alittle loose instead of unscrewing and rescrewing the adapter on. (Out of context this paragraph is pretty perverted.)

Quote:

If the lens itself is inferior, then I would expect to see more muddied colours and chomatic separation across the whole image.

You may find that the only solutions are careful composition and lighting to stay away from the conditions which aggravate it.

There is definitely some separation from the camera by itself but with the macros used (mine and/or the unit's) they are much worse. Hopefully the latest Letus fixes this issue. I expect to have some but not as much.

Quote:

Don't take too much notice of my comments as they may well send you off down a dead end.

No way. All comments are helpful in their own ways and I see nothing wrong with your's.

Bob Hart · January 2nd, 2006, 10:44 PM

Kyle.

I haven't viewed any motion footage, only the jpgs at top of this discussion.

I posted an addition just now which failed. In it I mentioned that Quyen had also mentioned that positioning of the relay lens/macro/close-up lens, whichever one calls it, closer or furthur away from the camcorder lens can have an effect on distortion.

I found similar with an earlier version of my own device and a telescope eyepiece lens set (SW5042). This was a very powerful magnifier and sat just 12mm - 18mm off the gg. It could be set up to frame 18mm (night-vision tube) or a wider 24mm motion picture sized image - just.

Positioning closer or furthur from the camcorder (PD150) would cause either barrel or pincushion distortion, but there was a sweet spot, where a test pattern of squares drawn on a piece of paper would remain square, not looking like a globe of the world or stretched off at the corners.

The FX1 digs a little deeper into the edges of the relay lens. You may have to trade off a little overall resolution by zooming closer in if you can on the groundglass to stay more in the centre of the relay lens.

This lens set was fine on a PD150 but does not work as well on the FX1. I now use a Century Optics +7 on the PD150 which is fine but sits the camera off the groundglass a lot furthur (120mm versus 12mm). Although it is a 58mm filter mount lens it works fine on the 72mm mount FX1 with an adaptor.

Graham Bernard · January 3rd, 2006, 01:06 AM

Kyle - you bought this kit - good. You've invested time and money in it. PLUS you have spent time putting it up here - so please, can you stick the camera on a tripod - and slow down with the pans?

You have gone to a lot of effort, effort I'd quite like to recognise - I'd really like to enjoy and note the quality.

Grazie

November 21st, 2005, 12:02 PM	#35
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	I did an entire shoot on Z1u with a letus 35 (yesterday) I will post some footage soon but it looks great. Eric __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

January 2nd, 2006, 08:02 PM	#38
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	I spy dirt! lol...Kyle what is filtered/original? Maybe I'm just remedial and I'm missing something obvious...is that ND filter vs. non-ND? I'm confused. __________________ BenWinter.com

January 3rd, 2006, 01:06 AM	#42
Graham Bernard Old Boot Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London UK Posts: 3,633	A small plea - thank you. Kyle - you bought this kit - good. You've invested time and money in it. PLUS you have spent time putting it up here - so please, can you stick the camera on a tripod - and slow down with the pans? You have gone to a lot of effort, effort I'd quite like to recognise - I'd really like to enjoy and note the quality. Grazie

November 20th, 2005, 09:22 PM	#31
Kyle Edwards Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI, NY Posts: 274	http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8940/0400km.jpg http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8572/0608iv.jpg http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4707/0908sr.jpg http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8319/1000ga.jpg http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/734/1106vr.jpg I replaced the GG with another material and feel that this test is much sharper than the previous. Also the loss of light is very small. Compared to the previous GG these images are much better IMO but compared to the camera naked, they of course are not as sharp. I am not sure if you can achieve the same results of sharpness as the defaul lens. The default lens also keeps everything in focus where this 50mm lens has very selective focusing making the image look soft overall, even in sharp areas. My eyes are also trying to focus the image on a very small screen. Out of the two problems, GG and macro filter, one is half way gone and the other needs work. Quene emailed me about a solution to the macro lens for the FX1 but I need a tad bit more information until I work on that.

November 20th, 2005, 10:08 PM	#32
Cody Dulock Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: arlington, texas Posts: 420	theres alot of chromatic abberation that a new "close up" type glass could get rid of perhaps. then again it could be your lens.

January 2nd, 2006, 07:41 PM	#37
Kyle Edwards Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI, NY Posts: 274	http://www.flmpro.com/samples/60mm_test.avi My last test with the Letus35 since I'm picking up the latest flip image. This test was with only natural light and a Nikon 60mm 2.8 lens. Once I recieve the new unit I will post alot more samples.

January 2nd, 2006, 10:10 PM	#39
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	Kyle. The finer the groundglass, you may begin to get some aerial image through which will be most apparent with out of focus overbright high contrast objects in background, sort of similar I guess to halation artifact in film images. You get a hazy area around a slightly sharper but still indistinct object. I have been getting a similar defect with a 5 micron dressed groundglass. There may be a bit of chromatic separation there on the right portion of the image of the pumpkin. Is there a possibility that after being dismantled, the close-up/relay/macro lens has become no longer centred to the camcorder's own lens centre axis, or skewed slightly. The plaster pot stand seems to be a bit stretched on the outer edge of the image. This suggests to me that the diameter of the close-up/macro/relay lens needs to be wider for this particular camera. You may find that if you have any zoom left, you may need to go in a little closer, perhaps sacrificing a little resolution off the groundglass in favour of being more in the centre of the relay lens to avoid the edge defect. If the lens itself is inferior, then I would expect to see more muddied colours and chomatic separation across the whole image. Unfortunately none of you images have bright objects on the left side or upper and lower edges to enable that to be seen. You may find that the only solutions are careful composition and lighting to stay away from the conditions which aggravate it. Don't take too much notice of my comments as they may well send you off down a dead end.

January 2nd, 2006, 10:44 PM	#41
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	Kyle. I haven't viewed any motion footage, only the jpgs at top of this discussion. I posted an addition just now which failed. In it I mentioned that Quyen had also mentioned that positioning of the relay lens/macro/close-up lens, whichever one calls it, closer or furthur away from the camcorder lens can have an effect on distortion. I found similar with an earlier version of my own device and a telescope eyepiece lens set (SW5042). This was a very powerful magnifier and sat just 12mm - 18mm off the gg. It could be set up to frame 18mm (night-vision tube) or a wider 24mm motion picture sized image - just. Positioning closer or furthur from the camcorder (PD150) would cause either barrel or pincushion distortion, but there was a sweet spot, where a test pattern of squares drawn on a piece of paper would remain square, not looking like a globe of the world or stretched off at the corners. The FX1 digs a little deeper into the edges of the relay lens. You may have to trade off a little overall resolution by zooming closer in if you can on the groundglass to stay more in the centre of the relay lens. This lens set was fine on a PD150 but does not work as well on the FX1. I now use a Century Optics +7 on the PD150 which is fine but sits the camera off the groundglass a lot furthur (120mm versus 12mm). Although it is a 58mm filter mount lens it works fine on the 72mm mount FX1 with an adaptor.