PDA

View Full Version : Really good 35mm FOOTAGE COLLECTION



twoneil
2007 September 22nd, 09:31
RULES (more like a guideline)

This is a thread to help those who are just starting/planning to build their DIY35mm adapter. Those who have already successfully created an adapter, please follow these guidelines and share your footage to everyone!


1. Post a photo of the your HV20 + adapter
2. Post a link to your footage
3. Post the specifications
---A. What lens did you use?
---B. What is the F-stop that you used?
---C. What is the focusing screen?
---D. What GG holder did you use?
---E. Did you use an achromat? Which one?

Footage should be at least 720p. mov or wmv.

Please post any questions or comments on the 'Really good 35mm DOF (http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=489)' so that we can make this thread clean and organized.

twoneil
2007 September 22nd, 09:36
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/28065/2002721365572685668_rs.jpg

Download Footage (http://www.mediafire.com/?ancjyyjxenj)

A. Canon FD 50mm
B. f1.8
C. Ee-S
D. SH-57EE
E. Opteka Macro HD

EDIT: This footage is very outdated and certainly not the best.

twoneil
2007 September 22nd, 09:46
http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/27919/2001013485817735063_rs.jpg

Download Footage (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?91g1mvyz1ds)

A. Canon FD 50mm
B. f1.8
C. Ee-S
D. SH-57EE
C. No achromat

The focusing screen I used here is very dirty. I will be buying a new one soon (untouched!).


EDIT: This one too.....it is antique.

tkmslee
2007 September 22nd, 16:16
I have a hard time understanding why someone would shoot in low light anyway (aside from home movies)...adapter or no adapter, good lighting = better footage.

Flyingsheep
2007 September 23rd, 03:02
I like the look of low light. With the right white balance and the right kind of low light, you can get really cool looking images with the HV20 in low light.

africanmarty
2007 September 23rd, 03:25
http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/9/26502551840.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6680811)
http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/9/26502551995.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6680812)


2. no footage yet, as when i bought it i forget to buy a 43-58mm step up ring :hv20-smilie36::hv20-smilie21:

3. Letus 35 Flip Enhanced


---A. Nikon 50mm
---B. will be using f2.0 ( lowest it goes )
---C. standard that came with letus adaptor
---D. standard that came with letus adaptor
---E. standard that came with letus adaptor

Halsu
2007 September 23rd, 05:31
Yep. Let's just keep things all nice and bright. Sitcom-style lighting all the way!

I guess you have misunderstood something here. All of the examples you mentioned had good lighting.

Good lighting is not the same as a lot of light blown at your face in sitcom style.

Good lighting means you have just the right amount of proper kind of light, exactly where you want it for the kind of look you are after.

What this means in practice can vary from a single candle to dozens of kilowatts to full blown sunlight.

****

Personally, in controlled environments like studio, i prefer to set my camera to as open F stop i can, with 1/50 shutter, no gain. I then light the scene with proper amount of light to get the feeling i'm after, without adjusting the camera.

Halsu
2007 September 23rd, 05:44
http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/35mm_adapter/firstlook/images/HalsuDOF_00.jpg


http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/35mm_adapter/footage/Eki35mmadapter_test2_720p.wmv


A. Nikon 55mm F1.8
B. Mostly F1.8
C. canon Ee-S
D. VH 54
E. Marumi +5 Achromat.

I zoomed in the footage slightly in post, the edges of GG were showing a little due to lazy setup. With +5 achromat, i can just barely zoom in the GG so that the edges do not show - the setup needs to be done with care.

The vibrator is off for the first half of the footage, on for the second half.

SmirkySmirker
2007 September 23rd, 09:36
What's with these damn wmvs? WMV is the worst format for videos! Post them on mov or mp4 or something damnit!

Halsu
2007 September 23rd, 11:10
For Barry Lyndon, Kubrick did his best to avoid movie lights and use natural sunlight even indoors.

Well, they lit the movie so that it LOOKS like it was shot with natural light only.

Not exactly the same thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon

Scroll down for the "photography" part...

Nothing wrong with natural light (or realistic lighting) though, i tend to use as much of it as possible on my own stuff.

As far as Godfather etc. goes - there was enough light to get proper exposure, wasn't there. Considering the usual lighting style in the early 70's, "low light" doesn't necessarily mean "low light" in today's terms.

***

Anyway, the only thing that matters is the end result. There's no real difference in the following situations:

1KW spotlight
4KW spotlight, ND4 filter on camera

The end result will look the same in both accounts.

Halsu
2007 September 23rd, 13:33
What's with these damn wmvs? WMV is the worst format for videos! Post them on mov or mp4 or something damnit!

What's wrong with wmv?

The problem with movs is that you need to use quicktime player for them, which i dislike...

Worley
2007 September 23rd, 14:19
wmv incorrectly displayed studio setup as computer setup. That is, the levels of white, black, and everything in between is incorrect.

At least, WMP displays levels incorrectly.

I think.

framecut
2007 September 23rd, 14:24
wmv incorrectly displayed studio setup as computer setup. That is, the levels of white, black, and everything in between is incorrect.

At least, WMP displays levels incorrectly.

I think.

Quicktime solves all this, it offers much better gamma controls and is way more frickin' faithful in deliverables than WMV ever could be.

Might as well be using "REAL VIDEO"

Norbert
2007 September 23rd, 16:42
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/28065/2002721365572685668_rs.jpg

Download Footage (http://www.mediafire.com/?ancjyyjxenj)

A. Canon FD 50mm
B. f1.8
C. Ee-S
D. SH-57EE
E. Opteka Macro HD

The bokeh you get from that thing is simply beautiful. One wonders if it would look the same with a vibrating GG or if it would get more fuzzy. Is it just me or does your footage have some slight spherical aberration? It's not visable in all clips but look at the fifth clip, the garden shot right after the shot where you stand in front of the mirror. Looks like it's a bit blurred on the edges.
Do you have to crop the footage when using the Opteka?

It would be really interesting to see a clip where you stop down the iris a bit, to say F4.0 or more. No one wants to be at F1.8 all the time. Or maybe you could really try to kill it by stopping down the iris as much as possible. Let us see how well it handles that. In other words, convince me to go static! :D

transducr
2007 September 23rd, 16:53
Great thread, boys! Keep up the good work!

"Try some shit. Do some anger!" -Charles Bukowski

twoneil
2007 September 23rd, 18:05
The bokeh you get from that thing is simply beautiful. One wonders if it would look the same with a vibrating GG or if it would get more fuzzy. Is it just me or does your footage have some slight spherical aberration? It's not visable in all clips but look at the fifth clip, the garden shot right after the shot where you stand in front of the mirror. Looks like it's a bit blurred on the edges.
Do you have to crop the footage when using the Opteka?


I did not crop the footage on post, but I zoomed in farther into the focusing screen.
It's probably because the lighting was too bright so I think an ND filter will fix that (Just like the Brevis).
Yes, it's blurred on the edges cause the focusing screen is not aligned.
It also appears less sharp than my previous footage. I'm hoping that it's not the fault of the Opteka but the HV20 was not focused properly on the gg.


It would be really interesting to see a clip where you stop down the iris a bit, to say F4.0 or more. No one wants to be at F1.8 all the time. Or maybe you could really try to kill it by stopping down the iris as much as possible. Let us see how well it handles that. In other words, convince me to go static! :D

Unfortunately I can't stop down my lens.
Before I even knew about F-stops, I've already glued my FD mount. I'm stuck with F1.8

But I have a Canon EF-S 18-55mm zoom lens and it's F3.5-5.6, with it, the videos have noticeable grains and smudges all around. (Since my focusing screen was abused; I poured hot water, alcohol & smite with q tips)

I'm making another one for someone, I'll post a footage with a new, virgin focusing screen. Hopefully the flaws above will be fixed on a new one.
I'll do my best to convince you to go static....since I had the Vibrating before.
But both have advantages & disadvantages.

You'll be good with either. It depends on your needs.

marketmd
2007 September 23rd, 20:21
Halsu- What HV20 camera settings do you use? (ex.: CINE or Tv/Av format?....do you use Barry Green's "cell phone trick" for fixing the aperture, etc?)

tkmslee
2007 September 23rd, 22:35
twoneil,

Wow...I really apologize if my comment started a string of brutal, uncalled for, and offensive comments. I truly didn't mean to start anything.

I was really only wondering, from a technical standpoint, why folks would not use good lighting when shooting. The cameras I have handled all need good lighting if you want good detail and no grain. I guess I assumed that the principles for digital video applied with all cameras. I suppose it just comes down to whether or not you mind having grain in the shot and good color and details.

Anyway, I do agree with twoneil about keeping comments professional and constructive if you feel the need to criticize anyone's work. Moreover, I think most people post because they want to share something they made and are proud of and if we do anything to give criticism in an offensive way, it only hurts the integrity of the forum (and a lot of feelings as well).

Thanks all.

Norbert
2007 September 24th, 02:30
I'll do my best to convince you to go static....since I had the Vibrating before.
But both have advantages & disadvantages.

You'll be good with either. It depends on your needs.Thanks, it's a difficult choice. I need static for slow motion (higher shutter speeds) and because it's cheaper and easier to make. On the other hand I need vibrating so I won't be locked below F2.0 all the time. What were your experiences with the vibrating adapter?

Worley
2007 September 24th, 03:36
Cool, dude ;-)

That depends on your player settings. It's not the fault of the format.

The second paragraph, implying uncertainty about that statement, says "At least, WMP displays levels incorrectly."

Halsu
2007 September 24th, 05:23
The second paragraph, implying uncertainty about that statement, says "At least, WMP displays levels incorrectly."

To me, the main reasons for favoring wmv are A) the fact that 90% of users have windows, so they can play it back without installing anything and B) it creates good enough quality vids versus the file size.

It's not perfect by any means, but in my opinion the best compromise.

***

I did a quick and unscientific F-stop test with my adapter.

http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/35mm_adapter/footage/F-stops/

First, there's stuff with my 35mm adapter, and a 85mm / F2 lens. I shot the test at F2, F4, F8, F16 and F22, both with and without vibration. The GG is Canon EE-S.

Second, there's the same shot without the adapter, at F2.4, F4 and F8, where HV20 tops out.

At this focal length, the full aperture of HV20 lens was 2.4, which seems to be roughly similar as the adapter at F16 or F22, as far as the DOF goes (which is pretty much how one would expect).

The film size in 35mm movie cameras is about half of that of 35mm SLR:s and my adapter, so the DOF characteristics should be similar around F8 compared to HV20 at full aperture. With super 16mm cameras, the difference is smaller, i'd expect them to look similar to full aperture HV20 at around F4.

The camera was set to aperture priority in all tests, for compatibility. The automatic exposure compensated for varying F-Stops to some degree, but there simply wasn't enough light to get F22 with the adapter without significantly darker image. I could have compensated for this in post, but decided not to.

The names of the files should be self-explanatory. Enjoy.

Mal
2007 September 24th, 07:44
Listen up; this thread has been heavily moderated, something I only do very reluctantly.

It's a good thread [now], with valuable info...

Cheers.

Halsu
2007 September 24th, 08:19
Halsu- What HV20 camera settings do you use? (ex.: CINE or Tv/Av format?....do you use Barry Green's "cell phone trick" for fixing the aperture, etc?)

I shoot pretty much everything in the Cine mode. With adapter, i usually just lock the exposure to whatever HV20 offers and dial some +/- according to taste - i do check that my shutter is at 1/50, if not, i add either ND or more light - or dim down the 35mm lens if appropriate.

When shooting without adapter, i deal with too much light with dual polarizing filters, and lock my camera to open aperture / no gain / 1/50 shutter - like this:

http://hv20.com/showthread.php?t=1132

...if there's not enough light... yes, i usually add some ;-)

*****

BTW, with the 85mm lens fully open at F2.0, my adapter eats away just a little more than one F-stop of light:

Without the adapter, the HV20 exposure was 1/100 at F2.4.
With adapter, the HV20 exposure was 1/50 at F2.0 (both without gain).

Not bad, IMO.

Norbert
2007 September 24th, 10:54
TI did a quick and unscientific F-stop test with my adapter.Thanks, just what I was looking for. I can't see any clear difference between your ON and OFF images, just a little dust. A video clip with motion would probably reveal more grain when the motor is OFF.

twoneil
2007 September 25th, 20:06
35mm adapter vs. HV20
Low light (some florescent & 50W lights)

Download Footage (http://www.mediafire.com/?7tj0xmeikyt)

A. Canon FD 50mm
B. f1.8
C. Ee-S
D. SH-57EE
C. No achromat

There is a slight loss of light because of the focusing screen but the FD lens stopped at f1.8 is letting in more light than the HV20 alone.

There is also a slight decrease in sharpness and the addition of vignetting.

Norbert
2007 September 26th, 13:19
Nice, the HV20 is clearly capable of a fairly short DOF on it's own for being a consumer camera. Did you zoom in to be able to do the rack focus with the HV20 alone?

twoneil
2007 September 26th, 13:29
Nice, the HV20 is clearly capable of a fairly short DOF on it's own for being a consumer camera. Did you zoom in to be able to do the rack focus with the HV20 alone?

The camera is at the same spot on both shots. I just zoomed in a little to have the equivalent frame of the 50mm FD lens.

tkmslee
2007 September 26th, 22:30
Here is my 35mm adapter footage (a web commercial for a local guy):

http://leetj.com/videos/hart04.mov

HV20
Canon EOS f1.8
DIY static adapter

africanmarty
2007 September 29th, 02:17
Canon HV20 w/ Letus 35 flip - nikon 50mm f2 - Test 1

This is a test i did with my canon HV20 and letus 35 flip enhanced using 50mm @ f2.0 shot outdoors on an overcast day. when putting the footage on my computer it didnt seem sharp, confused i tried to find out why... the reason was the the hv20 was not properly focused on the letus' gg propery. Any how i took some shots and here they are. To get great shot i'm going to have to get an external HD monitor so i can focus properly the the letus and get sharp/crisp footage.

Footage soon to come, in the mean time here are some stills (click on the images, to see the real pic, as the ones shown as thumbnails look sh*t) :

http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/9/27102074569.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6740441)
http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/9/27102075391.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6740442)
http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/9/27102075370.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6740443)
http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/9/27102075462.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6740444)

i would have uploaded the footage but my net is capped ( have gone over my upload/download limit) and running runing so sloO0w.

EDIT: got some footage up on youtube - http://youtube.com/watch?v=OaUnDXJEBJo

- Marty

africanmarty
2007 September 30th, 17:18
720p version up :

http://stage6.divx.com/user/africanmarty/video/1693235/Canon-HV20-w/-Letus-35-flips---Test-1-(HD-â??-High-definition)

Let me know if you guys think its soft or am i being paraniod.

- Marty.

RockyRoad2929
2007 October 3rd, 14:03
Nice stuff...from everyone.

Congrats to all for a fine job.

Cheers...

twoneil
2007 October 6th, 07:54
.....Is it just me or does your footage have some slight spherical aberration? It's not visable in all clips but look at the fifth clip, the garden shot right after the shot where you stand in front of the mirror. Looks like it's a bit blurred on the edges....

It turns out that I didn't focus on the gg properly.
I fixed that problem and here is the new footage.

click here (http://www.mediafire.com/?azt9ybxdst2)

...and yes, I'm still using my dirty old focusing screen.

(I've been filming the same old garden so I'll have a consistent comparison.
Sorry for those who already seen my other videos.)

Norbert
2007 October 6th, 11:02
Okay, I take back what I said before... that new clip just looks fantastic. I'm even more glad now that I ordered the 55mm Opteka today. :) You have the one with 52mm threads, right?

EDIT: I had another look, and in some clips it seems that you have vignetting on the left side of the image, especially the top left corner. Any idea why?

dr jones
2007 October 6th, 19:45
/\/\

the hv20 sensor is not properly alligned. one of the few flaws of the camera. thus, you will usually have vignetting on one side more than the other.

Ian-T
2007 October 6th, 20:28
I don't see any vignetting in this clip. What looks like vignetting appeared in the very beginning of the clip but then I did not notice it towards the end. What I do see are some specs (maybe on the lens itself) and some rough areas on the surface of the ground glass maybe.(toward the botom left of the screen).

In regards to the spec I see in the video...at first I found myself trying to rub the dirt off my PC monitior...so I sent the video's picture to the second monitor and it was still there.

By the way...this video is sharp as heck....I expected to see the typical "softened" look from the DOF adapter...but was pleasantly suprised.

Norbert
2007 October 7th, 03:28
I'm also struck by the sharpness, I don't think I've ever seen such a sharp image coming from a DIY adapter. The other thing that strikes me is the beautiful bokeh that we can see even more of in this video. The bokeh is not perfect though, you can see seven "dots" in a pattern where highlights bloom out to those bokeh pentagons. As I understand it, the "dots" will go away when the GG is vibrating... and so will the dirt and scratches.

I can't wait until I get all my parts. :D

joyborch
2007 October 7th, 08:33
Second test with DIY 35mm static adapter + 50mm olympus lens.

Canon Aa-e focusing screen

color graded premiere 2.0

http://stage6.divx.com/user/joyborch/video/1717079/35mm-adapter-+-color-graded

youtube version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVKagZjI9lk

dr jones
2007 October 8th, 00:43
looks really good joy!

twoneil
2007 November 23rd, 17:44
It's Winter and here is a footage using my crappy tripod whilst focusing with a thick gloves...brrrrrr...

http://www.vimeo.com/399586

http://aycu36.webshots.com/image/34555/2002631950941228566_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002631950941228566)

mbamber
2007 November 23rd, 21:21
Sweet. My 35mm adapter from TWONEILL shipped today! Can't wait till my footage looks this good!