|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 10th, 2005, 05:03 PM | #31 |
Posts: n/a
|
Brian,
Good question. Originally, the M2 was named the Micro35, but then Redrock changed the name to the M2 a month or so ago. The Mini is a product by P+S Technik that runs around $10k+ (depending on your camera and other equipment that you may buy along with it). This does not even include the cost of the lenses. Here's a link to more info on the Mini 35: http://www.pstechnik.de/en/index.php |
September 10th, 2005, 08:24 PM | #32 | |
New Boot
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23
|
Quote:
Thanks Kelly, well, with any luck I will join you very soon in the ranks of M2 n00b's. You're stills on your page have definitely inspired me to look into this further, and you've certainly steered me in the right direction. Thanks very much, Mike |
|
September 11th, 2005, 09:39 PM | #33 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
I think Jay was talking about MOST people who have a mattebox, especially the DVX fanboys, when prompted why say, "it looks cool." I dont know much about the M2, I have used the Mini35 a couple times but I would ALWAYS prefer to rent an SDX-900 or a Varicam.
ash =o) |
September 11th, 2005, 10:12 PM | #34 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 293
|
Just to clarify on the M2/micro35 question - we have not gotten to updating our site, but here's the basic gist:
the M2 is short for micro35 version 2 (hence just "M2"). The M2 is the currently shipping product. It is identical in every way to the micro35, except we upgraded the image element (ground glass). Here is a short excerpt from our support forums on our website regarding the M2: m2 is two items: First, m2 is a new imaging element (i.e., the "ground glass") that uses a new technology we've researched developed. It is so novel it is patent pending. The m2 is this simply a change in what the imaging element is made out of, but brings with it three significant advantages: 1. m2 has no grain, which to a large extent renders static vs. moving debate irrelevant. 2. m2 has significantly improved light. The photometrics conducted on it show the adapter to be nearly lossless in light. 3. m2 is significantly sharper and has better color and contrast. Sorry for all the seeming subterfuge - we weren't trying to be sneaky, we just wanted to start getting some footage out there and available before we generally discussed the M2. Also, the price hasn't changed - still $500 for the adapter.
__________________
========================== Brian Valente Redrock Microsystems |
September 12th, 2005, 06:12 AM | #35 | |||||
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jay |
|||||
September 12th, 2005, 06:16 AM | #36 | |
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
I'm confident Kelly would agree. And like Ash said above, if 24p and shallow DOF were absolutely necessary in a given project, then I'd rent a camera that could deliver it without all the hassle and added expense. It seems absurd to me to pay $3,500 or more for a camera and then pay $15,000 for a device to attach to it, then another $10,000 (cheap) for a set of prime lenses just to get a shallow DOF when I can get far better for far less by renting the appropriate tool for the job. Jay |
|
September 12th, 2005, 06:45 AM | #37 |
Posts: n/a
|
Jay,
What camera would you rent... and/or buy if you had a $15k to $25k budget to do so? Just curious. Thanks. |
September 12th, 2005, 07:26 AM | #38 | |
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
In this day and age, I would not buy a high-end camera (I'm tickled pink with my XL2). Upgrading software every whip-stitch is one thing, with cameras... let the rental houses absorb that expense! Jay |
|
September 12th, 2005, 07:39 AM | #39 |
Posts: n/a
|
Thanks Jay. Just needed to know what poster needed to replace my Ferrari poster.
LOL |
September 12th, 2005, 08:58 AM | #40 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 3,015
|
you're right, jay, i do need to get out more. i'm stuck at my desk editing for a few days, when i always prefer to be outside in the wilder-wild, scurrying around with my excessive loads of camera gear.
once again, this discussion rocks! makes sense of a lot of things, especially the current orthodoxy about shallow DOF, which until now, i was not able fully understand. it is interesting what comes into and out of vogue, as jay points out. in gear-head land, we get tunnel vision, easily attached to what someone else declares desirable, when actually film history is littered with an enormous range of looks, formats, styles, techniques, etc. which come in and out of style. the vast majority of audiences themselves are actually willing to accept more of a range of looks than we producers are, because they don't know any better. they are too busy trying to follow the story at a narrative level or to make sense of the juxtaposition of images to worry about whether a film has the "right" look or not. heck, the vast majority of my students have come into film history I without even being able to distinguish between film and video, let alone whether an artifact has shallow DOF or not. noticing DOF is actually a fairly high level of visual literacy for most students...most of them have never even heard the term or couldn't define it if they did. given that i often carry a lot of my own gear single-handedly for many miles to capture a single shot, i never really understood why anyone would want to add a matte box to the load. nor, for that matter (sorry jay!) a really good/heavy tripod, which, while great in a studio, can easily double the weight in a backpack. i'm really in the process of trying to master the beanbag tripod, so i can ditch the big, hairy thing altogether. so much gear, so many configurations. all part of the fun of figuring it out. thanks for sharing your ideas on this one...really has me mulling over a lot of things.... |
September 12th, 2005, 09:11 AM | #41 | |
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Jay |
|
September 12th, 2005, 09:15 AM | #42 |
Posts: n/a
|
Or I could sell all my current digital video equipment for a good start on buying one! I never knew digital video could be so darn addictive.
|
September 12th, 2005, 09:31 AM | #43 | |||
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Having said all that, if that's how a person wants to spend his money--more power to him. That's his right! Jay |
|||
September 12th, 2005, 09:34 AM | #44 | |
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Jay |
|
September 12th, 2005, 09:44 AM | #45 |
Posts: n/a
|
Is it sponsored by Canon and Apple? ;)
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|