redrockmicro VS canon lens???
 

I"m just learning about this great sounding M2 at www.redrockmicro.com. I downloaded a few of the tests they did there and the footage looks great!!! My question is this....

What is the difference between a micro35 unit and the XL Mount Interchangeable Lens System?

Wouldn't you get similar results with photo or films lens using the an XL system adapter? Is it a price thing?

I hate the term "film look". I think we should all try hard to strike that from our minds. Seems that a lot of people talking about "film look" are looking for a magic plug in where everything they shoot is great looking and they don't have to light at all. A lot of people when you ask them what "film look" means to them don't have an answer or a lightweight answer like.... "ah, I don't know, film grain?" I'm looking to shoot with a small DOF and the red rock micro looks great for that.

What do you mean by the XL Mount Interchangeable Lens System? Are you referring to the XL video lenses?

After looking at the sample videos, I have to say I'm very disappointed. All the videos looked too "soft" to me.

Jay

That's pretty standard view when you first see the footage. It also depends on what footage you saw. Everything on the main site is from a previous version of the ground glass/imaging element.

It's mostly a matter of preference. A lot of people like the soft look. I imagine (and hope) that you can receive a sharper image through settings on your camera. The adapter and lenses you use may effect it some but really shouldn't play too much into it.

Wouldn't you get similar results with photo or films lens using the an XL system adapter? Is it a price thing?

Film lenses like Cookes will give you a different look than a standard Canon video lens. 28 days later used Canon film lenses and an Optex mount and I believed it helped (small percentage) towards giving the stock video a look that more closely resembled film. I'm imagining the transfer to actual 35mm helped as well.
They may have shot in interlaced (60i) and had it transfered to 24p as well. I can't remember reading in the article if they shot in the XL1's "frame mode" or not. I know that causes severe headaches in attempting to transfer to film, if it's even possible.
Look at the July 2003 issue of American Cinematographer, the article is in there.

The XL EF adapter allows you to use canon EOS still lenses but it magnifies the lens by a factor of 7.2.

A factor of 7.2x if it's an XL1 or XL1S. With an XL2 it's a factor of 7.8x in 4:3 mode or 9.6x in 16:9 mode. See http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04.php for more details.

Correct, I have found it useless for most all applications. Maybe if you are shooting sports from 100 yards or nature but for narrative there are very few practical uses of the Canon adapter. I have done a couple mini35 shoots and I dont get it. By the time you rent or buy the set-up/lenses you could have rented a Varicam or SDX-900 or CineAlta...

I dont understand the obsession with matteboxes, mini35, etc. Those products were originally created for DPs that had an array of 4X4 filters and 35mm lenses already in their arsenal. If you dont have that gear already, you are looking at an XL2 that costs about $15k - $25K in total set-up. A 2/3" CCD camera will give you a similar look at higher resolution for about the same money.


ash =o)

Chris,
I think you accidentally typed those backwards. It should be 9.6x for 4x3 and 7.8x for 16x9.

At least that is what the article you linked to says.

D'oh! Guess I was still on my first cup of coffee there. Thanks for the correction,

I dont understand the obsession with matteboxes, mini35, etc. Those products were originally created for DPs that had an array of 4X4 filters and 35mm lenses already in their arsenal. If you dont have that gear already, you are looking at an XL2 that costs about $15k - $25K in total set-up. A 2/3" CCD camera will give you a similar look at higher resolution for about the same money.


ash =o)[/QUOTE]


Good, point, Ash.

I'm probably the first person to have an XL2 and an M2, so I'll try to answer these questions as best as I can.

The M2 is NOT just a 35mm lens adapter like the Canon EOS adapter is. With the M2, the 35mm lens displays its image on a piece of glass (the M2 element) within the M2 box you see. You then use the XL2 to focus on that image. The effect is that the depth of field (DOF) is dramatically reduced to around the amount you get from shooting actual film. The physics behind this could probably be explained by someone else better than what I can do off the top of my head so I won't try.

It is important to note that you do NOT get this effect by merely hooking up a 35mm lens to the XL2. You HAVE to display the image on an element and then focus on that element with the XL2.

To further clarify, the M2 isn't about making the image "soft" or giving it "grain" or anything like that. Its whole purpose is to limit DOF.

I disagree with the idea of striking the term "film look." I think it just has to be explained by TWO main things: 24 frames per second and limited DOF. This "looks like film" because film cameras shoot at 24 frames per second and have a more limited DOF than video cameras. The more you make a video camera work like a film camera, the more the video looks like film.

Sure, there may be many other things that could be described as contributing to the "film look," but if you start out with 24fps and limited DOF, you are 90% there.

As far as the M2 screen grabs or footage seeming soft, it may just be because it is slightly out of focus (operator error...by nature limited DOF means more difficulty focusing) or you are seeing the background and foreground out of focus while the subject is in focus (this is how it is supposed to look...that is how the films you see on the big screen typically look).

I hope this helps. My footage is probably not the best, but it was the first time I ever shot anything with any camera.

Thanks,

Kelly

Hi Kelly,

Would you be willing to share some photos of the entire rig and maybe a frame grab or two? At your convenience, of course. If so, I'll be happy to modify your DV Info account to allow you to upload images to our gallery. Thanks in advance,

I'd also love to see not only pics of the rig, but also of some additional footage. I'm not totally sold yet, either. The footage on their site didn't impress me much, but I hope it's better in real usage.

Thanks.

Kevin

Chris, go ahead and modify my account and tell me what I need to do.

Until then, I do have some pictures at www.snd.toobookoo.com. Click on the thumbnails to enlarge. Nothing is color corrected yet and everything will seem way too dark on most CRT computer monitors.

I can get more pics of the rig this weekend.

There are some important things you need to keep in mind if you want to get an M2, especially if you are using an XL2. I'd be happy to expand more and answer questions.

Thanks,

Kelly

Hi Kelly,

You should see an "upload" link at the top of this page...

http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/browseimages.php?c=3

Let me know how this works for ya...

<< There are some important things you need to keep in mind if you want to get an M2, especially if you are using an XL2. I'd be happy to expand more and answer questions. >>

Heck, please expand at your convenience, maybe we should turn it into an article for the XL2 Watchdog? Just a thought,

Chris, I have been meaning to write an article about the M2 and my experiences with Redrockmicro for a while. I'll put something together this weekend as I finish editing some of my footage. Perhaps I'll have some stills then also.

On a side note, sorry about not getting you an article on the 24p/24pa issue, but in researching it, I discovered that everything we were saying was out there on the internet already.

Thanks,

Kelly

how much was your tripod head?

Robert, the head (Bogen 516 pro fluid) and the legs (Bogen 3246 legs) were purchased as a package from BH Photo for $706.95. You could look them up individually. I really like them and would definitely purchase them again.

Chris, I'll be editing all weekend, so I'll write the article early next week. It will be very comprehensive with pictures and footage.

For now, if you are thinking about getting the M2 with the XL2, you need to know the following:

You picture will be recorded upside down. You will need to flip it in post.
You can turn your EVF on the XL2 upside down by mounting it from the other side.
You will need a larger monitor (I use a 7" widescreen LCD) to focus the image properly. Since the image is upside down, you either will need to mount the monitor that way or get one with a "flip" capability.
The camera baseplate of the M2 will have to be adjusted (this is easily done) to make up for the offset XL2 lens.
You will not be able to use autofocus or image stabilization. Real film cameras usually don't have this either, so don't complain.
Although you will receive a very nice foam cutout to store the M2 and rails, you will need to disassemble the rails and baseplate assembly to store (this only deals with the XL2 for reasons I will explain later).

Now don't let any of that get you down. The M2 is totally worth it and is 1/10th of the price of the next solution (the Mini35). The limited DOF is astounding and you won't work without it again if you are trying to emulate film.

Once again, I will put together a very comprehensive article next week. Until then, I will be happy to answer questions as time permits.

Thanks,

Kelly

Hey Kelly...I just got my XL2 and the M2 should be here next week (according to good ol' Valente). I may have lots of questions for ya since I too will be shooting my very first shot with and XL2 and the M2 (have used a GL2 some but not extensively).

Thought there might need to be some shimming on the adapter for the height of the camera...hopefully that's not a big issue. Also still trying to find the best solution for an on camera monitor. Did you buy the Ikan 7"? How is it (or whatever you have) holding up in terms of color or focus requirements.

Hope you'll be around to answer my Q's. I'll catch you on this board or the M2 board.

EDIT: Sorry just noticed you're using the panasonic monitor. I'm on a bit more of a budget but it's not too far out of the range. So how it it worlking?

Actually, it is an issue. If you plan on ever using a standard mattebox to mount on the rails, you will need to shim the rods up where they attach to the camera base plate. When you do this, you will no longer be able to move the rods all the way back without disassembling the rods/baseplate and removing the shims. This isn't a big deal for any reason other than storage...the rod assembly won't fit in the packaging foam (or case if you got that in your bundle) with the rods as forward as they need to be with the shims in. You will need to disassemble them every time you store them/put them in the case...kind of a pain.

If you don't plan on using a mattebox on the rails, then you can just shim the element up and everything will work fine for storage.

The shims need to be 3/8 to 7/16 of an inch thick and must have holes drilled through them. They need to be fairly strong if you are shimming the rods up since they hold the weight of the rods, M2, lens, etc.

I like it a lot. It works great, but does not have flip mode. I turn it upside down with the israeli arm I have. It also does not have underscan but it does change aspect ratios and has a black and white mode.

Kelly, I'm real interested in trying out the Mircro35 on my XL-2, what 35mm lens or lenses would you recommend using for optimal results?

(Sorry if you answered this already)

Michael, I can only answer from my limited experience. I don't know a lot about lenses to begin with. There are others who can talk about all the technical aspects of lenses for days.

There are different mounts you can get from the M2 to fit different lenses. I went with the Nikon because Nikon hasn't changed their mounting system in 50 years and there are a lot of used Nikons out there really cheap.

I picked up a Nikon 50mm 1:1.4 lens, a Nikon 135mm 1:2.8 and a Nikon 28mm 1:2.8. I am having some problems with the 28mm that I haven't determined if the fault is the lens, the M2 or me. I will have to get back with you on that. However, the 50 and 135 work great. I used the 50mm for 90% of all of my shots...it just seems to capture the right framing for most interior shots. Plus, at 1.4, it doesn't lose much light. The 135mm was used for closeups, but was quite a bit darker at 2.8. I really need to get an 85mm.

So, I guess I'd recommend Nikons at 50 and 85 and try to get the fastest lenses possible. You'll probably do fine with 1:1.4 to 1:2.8.

If you want more detailed info, I'm not the one to ask. There are a lot of individuals with a lot more information on the forums at redrockmicro.com. I would strongly recommend you go there and ask again. They will give you more info than you know what to do with.

Remember, I only started doing this so I wouldn't say I am an authority on anything.

Thanks,

Kelly

I've wondered the same thing myself--everytime I read a thread like this one.

The only thing I can imagine is that it boils down to "image." The thinking, admitted or not, must be "I've got a mattebox on my video camera, this will help my video look more like film."

The truth (bottom line) is the more glass and other crap you put between the subject you're video taping and the CCDs will degrade the image. The footage on the site textbook example.

Ash has the right idea.

Jay

I agree that if you're going to spend $15,000 to $25,000 on a video camera set-up, then one should consider getting a $15,000 to $25,000 video camera instead, but I'm not sure where the $15,000 to $25,000 figure came in for Kelly's set up.

Now I may be biased here, because I have an XL2 and should have my M2 within the next few weeks. But my total cost was around $5,200 to $5,500 for the XL2, M2, and a Nikon 50mm 1.4.

Of course that figure does not include the tripod, fluid head, montitors, etc., but the way I see it, you will need all of that other equipment regardless the video camera you have.

If this was the Mini35 we were talking about, then sure, you'd be in between $15,000 and $25,000 easily... but it's not, and the price for an M2 is just one of the several advantages it offers, with the main advantage being able to achieve better DOF more easily.

As far as the image they produce, I've seen some pretty nice stuff. The last footage that I saw with an XL2+M2 combo actually made me forget that I was even looking at digital - no kidding. Which is great, as that's one of the reason's I decided to buy an XL2 over other cameras in the first place. I think between now and Christmas we'll have plenty of footage from various users on different cameras to judge the overall quality of vidoes shot with various camera/M2 combinations.

Personally, all of the footage that I've seen so far, has me thinking the M2 is a great product at an unbeatable price, and is just another tool that will allow me to achieve my goal of the film look. Of course, if you don't feel that way, no problem, everyone has their own opinions and that's just ONE of the factors that makes this forum so great.

Brian, looks like your original question regarding the Canon lenses vs. the M2 was answered quite well.

And to your original statement of -

"I"m just learning about this great sounding M2 at www.redrockmicro.com. I downloaded a few of the tests they did there and the footage looks great!!! .... I'm looking to shoot with a small DOF and the red rock micro looks great for that."

I agree with you 100%.

Kelly,
Can you please post some footage using the Canon XL2 with the M2?

Jay, I'm really not sure why you would say that. Do you mean I'm just trying to "cool" by putting stuff on my camera?

My philosophy about 24p and limited DOF is that these are characteristics you can actually see when you go the the movie theater and watch a major motion picture. The 24p characteristic can be see in the way motion occurs and the limited DOF can be seen in the overall image. Over the years, this has created a culture that associates 24p and limited DOF with a higher standard of quality.

I'm not saying that it truly IS higher quality. There is no doubt that it is NOT. If anything 24p and limited DOF create a LESS accurate image. But I am not trying to get the most accurate image. If I were, I would have gone with an HD camera that couldn't shoot 24p or I would shoot at 30p.

This is about emulating a standard the our culture associates with what they think is a higher standard. There is no doubt that the 24p and limited DOF help you emulate that standard.

The same goes with audio recording. For years people recorded only with analog equipment. When digital first came around, it was clearly superior. Digital created a more accurate recording of the sound. However, digital recording did not have the same inaccurate characteristics as analog tape. And for years, people associated "quality" with those inaccurate characteristics. Therefore, a lot of equipment was produced that tried to make digital recordings sound like analog recordings. There was no doubt that you were "degrading" the audio in a way. However, the objective was not to get perfectly accurate audio. It was about emulating a standard the people equated with quality.

Don't take my footage as a completely representative sample. This was my first time shooting anything ever. As Derek said, pretty soon you will see footage from people who really know how to shoot.

Thanks,

Kelly

I will as soon as I get finished editing this weekend. I should have something up by Wednesday.

woo hoo! kelly wilbur and jay gladwell in a cage match! these are the dvinfo moments we all live for!

seriously, though, this is one of the most interesting links i've read in a while, the type that has me returning to my computer to see who is saying what....

i've been pondering these very issues for awhile, trying to decide what my next Big Purchase should be and wondering if it is time to spend Really Big Money on entering the world of 35mm lenses, so this discussion is really fabulous. it is a huge financial investment, between lenses adapters, etc., and i'm just finally adjusting to the XL2 itself--haven't really explored its parameters fully after owning it for a full six months or so.

actually, i really just want to be lauri ketunnen when i grow up, who is my dvinfo.net idol, so i don't know if the redrock adapter is for me, but it is always tempting to load up on the Next Greatest Thing.

i don't think jay was saying, kelly, that you're trying to be cool, but just that the impulse to have all the coolest toys is ubiquitous among People Like Us.

i'm sitting here trying to organize my video gear closet (miserably, i might add, i need a garage sale) and am realizing that i am a living testament to the thrill of video gear acquisition.

what we really need is a link how How Many Stupid Purchases I Have Made Along the Way. subtitled The Big Thrill. for true addicts only. i think the four (yes, four) different bags i bought in the effort to lug my XL2 around would qualify.

anyone need an unused lowepro photo trekker aw II? if i can offload it, maybe i could squeeze in that redrock adapter! i bet i could squeeze one in thisyere closet if i just rearrange a few items....

Now we're talking!!!!
 

Wow, did I start a fire storm with my first post or what!?!? Kelly, thanks for all the info. I'm really interested in seeing more footage over the next few weeks and learning more. At first I was on the fence about if this product was for real. Sound like it is. My one question about the quote above is -- isn't the mini35 the product we were talking about? Isn't that the same as the M2? On the red rock site I see the micro35 Digital Cinematographer Bundle for $1300. Is that the M2? Is that the Mini35? A little behind here. Also do you have to buy a new len mount for each type of lens you put on it? How much did you pay for each mount, how much fr each lens?

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

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

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)

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.

Kelly, yes, in some cases (the majority) that is exactly what's happening. I've been in this business for over 30 years. I can tell instantly, from reading posts here, the difference between those who are wanting to look cool and those who are knowledgeable, practicing filmmakers.

I'll agree with this comment, but only to a point. It has created a culture of wanabe filmmakers who think 24p and DOF are a higher standard. The introduction of 24p and DOF, as a be-all, end-all, do not create or add to "a higher standard of quality" in film. If people around here would study the history of cinema--and cinematography specifically--they'd learn that for years (and I'm talking decades) cinematographers busted their butts to achieve "deep depth of field." Herein lies the irony. The DPs that gave us some of the most memorable, most beautiful images in cinmea, would give their right yarble for the depth of field we are able to get today with the dreaded "video camera."

You appear to be contradicting yourself, then. I don't understand what you mean by "accurate image."

You hit the nail on the head when you said "what they think."

There was nothing wrong with your footage, per se. It was properly exposed and well composed--you did a good job there. The problem that I saw (and not in your footage alone, I've seen footage using this device shot by a true professional) was the device degraded the image to the point that was, in my opinion, unacceptable. No reflection on you, just the device.

Jay

LOL -- Then Meryem, you and the others need to get out more! ;)
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

Jay,

What camera would you rent... and/or buy if you had a $15k to $25k budget to do so?

Just curious. Thanks.

Derek, depending on the project, I would probably go with the Panasonic SDX-900 due to it's general flexibility. On the other hand, again, depending on the project, I might go with the Panasonic's Varicam if more resolution was required.

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

Thanks Jay. Just needed to know what poster needed to replace my Ferrari poster.

LOL

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....