More Letus Footage
 

Used VIVIDRGB preset with the following modifications:
Color Gain: 0
HDF: Middle
Sharpness: 0

White balance was set to default daylight. Evening light, I let nature do its thing with the color of light. Not every shot is in sharp focus but most are. Cute model is my daughter. Applied a 2.35:1 matte. Shot using 24f. Only CC done was a levels adjustment.

Used the following Nikon lenses:
100mm 2.8
50mm 1.8
28mm 2.8

Rendered to a 720p file. File size is about 112mb or so, enjoy:

http://www.pinelakefilms.com/XHA1/letus_tara_720.wmv

Damn Steven

You are a true artist. The way you see the world through your lens is inspiring. You were ready for prime time a long time ago; I'd hire you as my DP in a second !

My favorite shot was of your little girl sitting and the horizon in soft focus reflected back at us off of the glass door.

-

Please do more narrative work; you have the gift !

The A1 and letus flip really looks like a dyamite combo! Do you use any rails with yours and a follow focus or anything?

Every image you take it crazy nice because you've got that eye.... The Eye of The TIGERRRRRRRRR!

Thanks for the comments.

I do not use rails and no follow focus. It doesn't make sense for me because I got the Letus based on how easy it is to just screw on and you are good to go.

Using an external monitor for critical focus, however, is a must for me. I use this Marshall monitor: http://www.lcdracks.com/monitors/vr70phda.html

Steven:

How does the Marshall do in daylight outdoors. Do you have to "hood" it ?

I could benefit greatly from using a hood but I am stony broke right now so my cupped hands are doing a great job :)

Very sweet looking kid, very natural. Nice, Steven.

I've been looking more and more into buying a 35mm adapter for my camera. These are the type of clips that convince me.

If you don't mind, how much did you spend on your Letus setup? I need to do a ton of more research before I understand how to use one properly, however...

Beautiful footage!

Your kids are gonna have the most cinematic childhood memories ever.

the shots with her in focus (waist up) and the background out of focus, the background is grainy, is that a low light issue with the camera? I`m looking into getting one but I need to understand its light limits etc, especially since i`ll be filming in the woods alot....also...whats letus?

http://www.letus35.com/
http://dvxuser.com/articles/35/

Thanks for posting those links Doug. I will, however, voice my opinion that I don't believe this particular test did the Letus justice at all. I don't know if it was the testers or the unit itself but the examples are of a very low quality and do not do the adapter justice. What I have shown in this thread is what its capable of.

The shots you mentioned were at the very end of the day as the light was failing. The camera by itself has very good low light performance.

First thing I think we have to understand is that to make the images Steven is making in his posts, you have to take your time and painstakingly set things up. Steven is a master at using a camera, and I look for his posts of films all the time so I can learn what he is doing. I believe he could make a spectactular film with my Panny GS 120 with nothing else attached. The Letus is just one more tool there.

Second, I have had the non flip version of the Letus for about 2 weeks now, after having built my own 35mm adapter using Redrocks design before. Its capabilities were limited by my tech skills. In my case, I'm shooting with an FX1 or the new Canon HV20. Of course at the same time I added Nikon lenses over the Pentax I was using on the DIY adapter, but my experience has been nothing but positive with the Letus. The ease of screwing on the adapter is fantastic. With the HV20 I actually developed a mount to the tripod leaving the Camera upside down, which ends up with a right side up image in post. The image is great.

This is one of the first test shots I did with the Letus, and it shows the promise of using the Letus.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Y2763PSV

Low light issue. Most of the adapter have these issues. After all, you are taking an image of a ground glass. If it is critical to you, then you would likely be better of with the Letus35a, without the flip. My understanding is it can make a stop or stop and a half difference. I don't know if Steven agrees with that.

The other adapter you may want to look at is the Brevis from Cinevate. Its a bit more expensive, but there line includes add ons for specific filming situation, and I understand Dennis is coming out with a flip there too.

Hey ! You don't post your own work in someone else's thread. > = I

I can't exactly see the noise/grain you specifcally are referring to but I often wonder why people focus (pun) so hard on this non-issue ?

Grain and noise are inherent to the medium. From digital to film, it is a part of the image either through feedback or organic chemical. Most noise issues can be solved with simply avoiding LOW LIGHT SITUATIONS or adding light to the subject.

- And remember, any low-light issues one may have concern for will be enhanced with the use of an adapter.

My apologies
 

My apologies for this impropriety. I took this to be discussion of the benefits of the letus, not a show your work thread....my apologies. .. It won't happen again.

Not a problem at all Chris. This Sample Clips area of the forum really is just for sharing clips, not getting into technical discussions. There is a whole area in this forum devoted to 35mm adapters.

More often than not, I find threads quickly go off-topic and that can sometimes be frustrating.

Having said that, your opinion is always welcome. We are not in the business of making anyone feel uncomfortable here.

i also highly enjoy steven`s work and thus why I tend to ask him alot of questions about his work. He is always fair and responsive in his answers, taking the question for what it is and not analyzing 'why' the question was asked. Thanks Steven, and this was the first of your posts I came across in the A1 forum so I responded to what I saw. Which is your most recent Letus video so I can see the difference.

Maybe I am expecting too much but even though these are the best looking Letus shots I have seen, I still find there is an overall softness that I dislike somewhat. The shallow depth of field is great but I still find the subject to look soft. Like this is an effect and not a sharp lens. Obviously Stephen has mad skills and it is not him. I just find that when I watch real 35mm shot footage the subjects are razor sharp (like HD from the raw A1 looks) but the background only is soft. All the footage I have seen from Letus looks like the subject is soft too somewhat. Maybe that is the cost of having this type of adapter.....but it bugs me for some reason.

Anyone else notice this? I guess we (at least me) are getting spoiled. I expect too much. I get used to seeing razor sharp amazing images from my H1/A1 that rival HD on the networks. However the DOF is video looking.

Then I see disjecta Letus footage which has all the DOF that we love, but I see a softer image now and it falls back from the broadcast/film look in a different category. Even the subject looks mildly soft. It just loses something for me. And I am "this" close to pulling the trigger and getting a Letus but I am just a bit apprehensive.

Peace!

Interesting would be a side by side comparison of the same subject framed the same way with and without the Letus to compare sharpness.

Marty, I have to say that I am flabbergasted by your post. I have watched this footage at close range on a 50" monitor and it is as sharp as any HD broadcast movie or drama I have seen. You'll have to forgive me saying that what you want seems to be impossible. This is way sharper than the mini35 is capable of and it's as good and in some cases much better than any footage I've seen from other adapters.

If the footage I am showing you here is not sharp enough for you, you should seriously consider just shooting 35mm film. Also keep in mind that there is an inherent softness in film anyway. Sure, some stocks are razor sharp but the classic film stocks do have that softness. A lot of it has to do with the actual physical make up of celluloid.

Sometimes I see 24p footage shot with a Cine Alta or the like and it looks so sharp, it actually makes me more aware of the video origins of the image.

This is all a matter of taste and preference of course but I still think, given the images we are creating today, that we should be blown away by what we can do with these tools instead of trying to match every single 35mm dot to video pixels.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that another consideration is that this has been downrezzed to 1280x720 and it is softer than my original so also take that into account when you are looking at this stuff.

Below is a still from the original frame size. I printed this out as a photograph and it was as sharp as any photo I have.

Why would you want to do this? It's common knowledge that 35mm adapters lose some degree of sharpness so comparing to see just how much....not sure what the point of that would be.

These adapters create an image that is filmic and can resolve images with greater or equal resolution to that of the HVX200's stock lens.

I don't know, maybe I'm just cranky this morning but I get upset when I see people obsessing so much over such minute little details.

I'm not trying to offend anyone here, I know we all have our own point of view but....oh well, never mind :)

I agree with steven, my problem with HD is that its too sharp. I like the softness these adapters bring, it really does make it more like film. If you've used plugins like Magic Bullet, which are used to make video more film-like, one of the things it does is softens the image. Film is natrually softer. Now slap any 35mm HD footage on a television and its just as sharp as any 35mm movie.

Marty:

Having made a few attempts at working with adapters, I am impressed with these images. They are beautiful and have that Dempsey touch and feel that we have grown accustomed to. Certainly, if you compared to some of the straight HD that we have seen from him, it is, because of the adapter, a bit softer looking. But we shouldn't confuse the fact that more of the image in frame is out of focus, necessarily, with softness. I think at the critical focus areas, these shots demonstrate a pretty sharp image.

I think you are right that when we shoot in High Definition video, we get used to expecting sharper images throught a wider field range due to the inherent greater depth of field. Maybe that is the future of film. But these adapters were made to get back to the shallower depth that is more film like as we know it.

Last movie I saw at the theaters was Rocky Balboa. Of course this is all subjective, but sharpness of the image wasn't what impressed me about this movie. The film had a lot of grain, and was shot in a high contrast settings, with a lot of depth of field "tricks". The fight scenes were a bit different, but the point is, when you are looking at a film, sharpness of the image is not usually number one on the list.

My question about the Letus/A1 combo is can it be extended into the the more extreme lighting situations and stylized filming, and maintain nice image we are seeing from Stevens projects. I'm betting that it can be done, and frankly has been done already. I'm looking forward to what Steven does to extend those techniques !

Yeah, pop over to DVXUser and find a film called "Katrina" shot with, I think, the SGPro and you will see what these things are capable of with controlled lighting.

OK! Please chill out! I didn't mean this in any type of offensive way. I came to this conclusion last night when flipping channels and I saw several clips on network dramas that are shot either in hi def or on film. Either way what I saw was consistent.

Main actors in the shot looked razor sharp/crystal clear.....stunning imagery. No harsh video look or electronic shrapening but great sharp film-like image. Background behind him was out of focus to the max. It looked amazing. I have shot a lot with the H1 and the A1 to a lesser extent and I have come to know that with the stock lenses they can achieve a very similar image as far as clarity goes. They just lack that awsome DOF that we all love.

Then I thought about the video you posted. They look really great but I still think they fall short of network broadcasted drama quality in the area of perceived sharpness. There is just no way a $3500 HDV camera pointing at a piece of spinning ground glass ($900??) is going to get as good a result as a Panavision system shooting on 35mm or a Sony Cinealta f950. It is close but there has to be a tradeoff.

Alas.....I stated a couple times that I am probably expecting too much from this setup. Do I think it looks more filmic and more like it was shot with a real lens? Absolutely. Do I think it looks less sharp than the stock lens? Yes I do. Do I think the Stock lens looks as sharp as a Varicam/Cinealte class camera? No I don't. Therefore the stock lens + extra glass does not equal any more clarity than stock lens.

Either way, I apologize if I did offend. I just hear everyone raving about how it is the sharpest looking "35mm adapter footage out there" yet I still find it a little soft. Yes it is better than most of what I have seen. But I was hoping for a little more, which is really, really not realistic.

No offense taken and a little context does the world of good :)

I surely meant no harm ! I too am sorry if it came across as brash. = /

-

Back on topic =

I find the subject of sharpness becoming more and more moot and am convinced some people actually look for it. Complaints about grain/noise or it's too soft or that it is to sharp !

This footage is awesome looking and any sharper and I'd start to not like it probably as Steven says, it would somehow remind me of the videoyimage.

I'd like to see some of the same shots using a harder light source (Light and Dark)

I just watched the footage again. And I have to ask... Is it possible that your DOF is too shallow? What I mean is it seems that some shots look really sharp, and others a little soft.....and the ones that are sharp falloff fast. For example your daughter's face is in focus but her ears and hair are going soft as it falls out of the focal area. This is a nice look but it seems more specialized...like you would use it to convey an extreme emotional moment. What I am wondering is if you can expand the DOF more on some of these shots so that everything on your daughter is in focus clearly and still maintain that Bokeh in the background?

Also.....I think I stated that I was considering a letus but for my H1 but I do not want to deal with the .9x multiplier. Will the Letus flip enhanced like you have work on the H1 stock lens? I don't see why it wouldn't but I figured I'd ask. I realize it will be long and gawky but from a mechanical and optical POV it should function.

Thanks!
Marty

It's just the fightin' Irish in you, John. :)

I'll eventually do something with controlled lighting. I'll post when I do.

I believe it would fit on the H1 lens, you should confirm that with Quyen though.

John,

In all fairness I caught about 5 minutes of LOST the other evening (I don't watch this, I just was flipping) and the footage of the guy talking to the girl on the beach was amazing crisp and clear, looking like amazing HD but not feeling video-like. The ocean and trees behind him were blurry as heck. This looked like some stunning footage and it was. I doubt you would have not liked it because it was so sharp.

My point is I think we need to clarify sharpness is not necesarilly a bad thing. Maybe it is the wrong word. Clarity perhaps?

I don't know. The bottom line is you can't pigeon hole these things. Shallow DOF and an overall softer image doesn't absolutely mean it's more filmlike any more than sharp and crystal clear is exclusive to video.

A good combination of both is good.

Peace to all and keep up the great work. I wish I had more time to contribute some footage. Maybe next week? :)

I know only too well that at $900 adapter and a few cheap Nikon lenses is not going to match up to something shot with a full 35mm rig. Just like 24p is only going to approximate the cadence of film, the adapters will give a very good representation of something shot on 35mm if you don't sit there and do an A/B comparison between the two.

I'm actually agreeing with you Marty and I again will state that I do not expect a McGyver HD setup to look like a 35mm production but the fact that my eyes and mind are fooled when I look at my own footage independently is what is so exciting.

As we all know, there are many tricks that can be employed by using creative lighting and atmosphere to create even more depth and it would be fun to have access to this kind of set up and see how my little adapter setup would hold up :) Oh yeah, I'd also like a crew of 100 to achieve that effect also :)

In the meantime, I'm thrilled with the stuff I'm shooting and how it looks. Ain't nobody gonna tell me I don't own a Panavision setup :) Let me wallow in the confines of my own fantasy.

I only wish I was wallowing in that same world. I love the DOF you are getting. Any comments on my question about "too shallow" DOF? I mean....it looks great but in my mind, I don't recall seeing these extremes used that often other than for effect. Can you get a nice shot that has all of your daughter in perfect focus and retain the bokeh in the background?

I remember reading at some point that the area on the ground glass that the 35mm lens projects an image onto is actually larger than a 35mm sensor would be and therefore it is possible that the DOF is even more shallow than on an actual 35mm camera. Is this true?

Seems to me that what you are asking for is illustrated in the still I posted earlier, is it not?

Yes, I used extremely narrow depth of field effects for this piece because I wanted to achieve an intimacy in the shots and just demonstrate the extremity the adapter can to to.

I don't know the answer to your last question but I suspect it's no.

I am looking at right now and her right ear and hair and shoulder are all soft. They are just outside of the range of focus. I am guessing the focal depth is less than 8 inches. What I am wondering is if you stopped down could you expand the usable focus are and get all of her in focus in that shot? I am guessing this is the 50mm lens based on my limited experience with 35mm photography a few years back. Is that right? It definitely doesn'y look like your 28mm.

Peace!

Yes, absolutely the depth of field would be dramatically increased as I close the iris down on the Nikon lens. Just didn't do it for this particular session.

Can you physically see the area on the ground glass that has an image projected on it from the front lens? Does it look around the size of a 35mm negative? If so then it would be pretty accurate to a 35mm DOF. If it is much larger then the DOF could be even more shallow than even 35mm.

Can you just look at it and ballpark if it is in the 35mm range?

Marty

Can you recall what fstop you were at for this shot? Approximately? Is this a wide open type of look or is the DOF this shallow in the f5.6 range?

Yes, I believe it is totally within that range.

Most of the shots were wide open on the Nikons and I adjusted A1's iris. Again, this test was for the purpose of demonstrating a narrow depth of field, not showing the range of the lenses.