Whole point of 35 DOF Adaptor?

[previdman]

Whenever I watch someone's video shot with just about any brand 35mm adaptor I only come away with one impression. The picture looks very soft, even degraded in most examples.

IF we are regarding HV20/30 as the holy grail for HD sharpness, it astounds me the first thing many users do is add a DOF adaptor which, IMO, muddies its pristine image quality.

I mean, if the HV or any other camera, were to shoot as soft an image as some of these adaptors produce, those of us demanding image sharpness wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. We'd all be looking at putting our money into a better camera not something that makes a great camera average, at best. It just doesn't make sense to me.

As an artist, I understand about DOF control and reason for it but to sacrifice the one thing the HV's are known for, image quality, for that control seems like a big tradeoff.

I've seen some footage lately that looks so bad my old VHS tapes would put them to shame.

So what's the deal? Why get a nice, sharpshooting camera like the HV and saddle it with a contraption that degrades it's picture quality? And I'm not even talking about the vignetting that occurs, sometimes to the point of distraction.

I get it that going for the ethereal film-look quality is cool but it seems it should be applied more as an effect rather than a permanent, costly fixture. Couldn't the money spent on something that reduces image quality be better spent on something more beneficial?

And to the point of spending hundreds to thousands more for the adaptor, lens, rails and so on? Is this just an elitist case of the "Emperor's New Clothes" or what?

Or do I just not get it? If so, someone please, enlighten my dumb ol' ass. I'll be forever indebted....well, for awhile anyway.

[CycleWriter]

I'm with you, Mike. To use a car analogy, it's like buying a Chevy engine to put into a Lexus. It'll look cool, but will it really run any better?

[tkmslee]

It comes down to one thing: a matter of taste and opinion.

[benkrebs]

And to the point of spending hundreds to thousands more for the adaptor, lens, rails and so on? Is this just an elitist case of the "Emperor's New Clothes" or what?

Or do I just not get it? If so, someone please, enlighten my dumb ol' ass. I'll be forever indebted....well, for awhile anyway.

well, i cant speak for spending much on my adaptor, i probably invested about $100 for parts i used, and i can say the image ive gotten from mine is much sharper than all the DIY makes on the forum.

i totally agree though, i love the sharpness and color clarity of the hv30, and thats why, with the exception of my "cat tests" i use the adaptor only for shots that need either the field of view of my 15mm, or the depth of field and jagged zoom of my manual lenses.

my complaint with a naked hv30 is the absolutely miserable bokeh. Everyone claims it has great depth of field when zoomed in, and it does, but the jagged out of focus areas just look terrible in my opinion.

im sure this will get derailed into another "every tool has its advantages and disadvantages" logical outcome once 35mm fanboys have their say, but ultimately, its best to use any piece of equipment to its absolute strengths.

for snowboarding, i use the hv30 for wide and long shots where there is no noticeable depth of field to get muddled by the ugly camcorder aperture, and then i throw on the adaptor for follow alongs with the 15mm, and for b-roll shots.

i suppose its similar to photographers who discover circular polarizers and then never take it off, just about anyone who discovers something new will use it to death until they get bored with it and realize its not always the best, a good photographer/filmmaker will use the right equipment for the right shot.

until then though, we're flooded with freaking f.1.4 filmmaking.

ergh..

[previdman]

.... it's like buying a Chevy engine to put into a Lexus. It'll look cool, but will it really run any better?

Style over substance. Seems to be an epidemic today, going on almost everywhere I look...with no signs of letting up. (sigh)

[previdman]

....i suppose its similar to photographers who discover circular polarizers and then never take it off, just about anyone who discovers something new will use it to death until they get bored with it and realize its not always the best, a good photographer/filmmaker will use the right equipment for the right shot....

Well put. This is REALLY important. I'd hate to see licensing requirements before you could legally own a DOF adaptor.

But if it has to come to that...

[CycleWriter]

Well put. This is REALLY important. I'd hate to see licensing requirements before you could legally own a DOF adaptor.

But if it has to come to that...

I'd sign that petition if only to lower the bandwidth in here.

[previdman]

LOL! Count me in. Let's co-author the bill!

[redfalcon]

Style over substance. Seems to be an epidemic today, going on almost everywhere I look...with no signs of letting up. (sigh)

Very well put.

[bluegrass]

I'll go along with some of the things that Previd is saying but I bought mine to make my videos smell better. I like the subject in focus to be as sharp as possible though.

[Erik Bien]

When adaptors are outlawed, only outlaws will have adapters!

[Rumpelgeist]

Previdman, is your ol' ass really that dumb? Or are you playing devil's advocate? In any case, I feel like typing so here it goes.

* First, the artsy-fartsy thing. This is what everyone knows of, so let's skip it.

* Second, 24fps thing, which is a de-facto standard for movies so DPs have to work around it. For whatever reasons, many think that this "movie look" is cool and adds value by itself, so they try emulating it with cheap consumer 24fps videocams and their tiny sensors. The result is often revolting due to long DOF and lack of cinematic skills, so whenever there is movement in the scene, the whole thing strobes. Shallow DOF is a technical -- not artistic! -- solution to soften the big background behind the subject and to reduce the strobing and to keep viewer's eyeballs from bleeding. The HV by itself has pretty long DOF. Shallow DOF can be achieved only on closeups and you have to have enough space between the subject and the background. An adapter allows having shallow DOF in any environment even for a wide shot.

* Shallow DOF has another benefit besides being a patch for 24fps. I am talking about reduced detail in blurred areas. This is not important for real film, but vital for digital compression. More blur, less data to compress, less compression artifacts. At the same time areas that are in focus (presumably this is the subject you are interested it) get more bandwidth and smaller compression blocks, so look sharper and more detailed (contrary to what you said). Go to a nearest park and shoot trees with branches and leaves. Do you see artifacts? Try panning. It becomes horrible. But with shallow DOF all your trees will become one blurred backdrop, on which your main subject will stand out, sharp and clean. This means that when shooting a busy scene, you are not sacrificing HD quality, you are in fact getting a better quality. This may be a matter of taste, but I prefer a slightly softer picture without macroblocks, you may prefer just the opposite. Check modern HD shows on TV. Most of them shot on film, but with compression in mind. Backgrounds are soft, with solid colors, faces are large, movement is either very slow or extremely fast so you don't see artifacts. Add some color correction and you get rich, creamy HD image. Same with say football. Panning over stands is horrible, especially in 1080i, it is a macroblock fest with added motion blur, all bad stuff together. But closeups on the players look extremely tasty, with stands thrown out of focus the players look extremely sharp and clean. Sports camera operators have adjusted to HD limitations by using shallower lenses and a bit different techniques.

* You said that video from adapters is soft. Yeah, it gets a bit softer, but as I saw myself in others' videos, a properly set adapter is capable of delivering pretty sharp image when the subject is in focus. Focusing is extremely important for shallow DOF, someone posted an adapter video recently, which was all out of focus, ewww, yucky. With proper technique it will be sharp enough, but not everyone who got themselves an adapter is capable of proper cinematic techiques.

* Don't mix edge sharpness and level of detail. Movies do not have a lot of detail, they do not look as real as HD, and this is partly intentional. Who wants to see freckles on, um, say, Jennifer Anniston's face? But the edges are pretty sharp and well defined, and after doing some reading and watching educational videos, this is what seems to matter most for the human eye, edge sharpness, not facial or whatever else detal. And a good adapter can deliver that.

I might have missed something, but I got bored typing So this is it for now.

[Braceface]

I love shallow depth of field.

[CWildenradt]

Here's a frame grab from some footage I've shot with my adapter:



I don't really think that the image quality is degraded. However, I know the types of videos that you've seen which probably inspired your question. Aramis had a great post above, but I'll make some simpler and more fundamental points:

1) The design of the adapter will make or break it. Back focus is a huge issue with some DIY adapters. If it's off, your picture will be hosed. It's a technical detail that has to be dead on. Also, the ground glass is a huge factor. You simply need a great looking GG. Then of course there is the matter of your macro lens and the condenser (if used) which aid in vignetting and chromatic abberation issues that can degrade the quality. Many DIY adapters fall short in one or more of these details and the picture suffers.

2) Operator ability is critical. Fact is, there are a lot of people out there with adapters that simply don't know how to compose shots with them. It really takes the right combination of settings--from the 35mm lens aperture to the shooting mode, shutter speed and aperture on the camera's lens, and the lighting that you're wrking with--to shoot nice footage. A lot of people think you slap it on, open the aperture up to f1.4, and hit record and the adapter will magically make the footage look good.

3) You have to know when it's appropriate to use an adapter. This has already been touched on by benkrebs.

So in answer to your question of what's the point? When a proper adapter is used properly, it remedies some of the HV20/HV30's shortcomings. Helps it to be a jack of all trades if you will. It also creates an aesthetic quality that can't be achieved with the HV20/HV30 by itself. You may or may not have seen the clip below before, but I think it's a great example of how using an HV20 with an adapter can help you create something nice that would be impossible to produce with the camera alone.

The actual movie was shot with HV20's and 35mm adapters. The full movie is no longer available to watch but this video features several clips.
[ame="http://vimeo.com/1384590?pg=embed&sec=1384590"]Special Preview ? A First Look At 'IFHY' on Vimeo[/ame]

[CycleWriter]

Here's a frame grab from some footage I've shot with my adapter:

WOW! That's the best I've seen yet. It makes you look 20 years younger than your avatar pic.

[CycleWriter]

With proper technique it will be sharp enough, but not everyone who got themselves an adapter is capable of proper cinematic techiques.

Right there is your nugget for the day.

[CWildenradt]

WOW! That's the best I've seen yet. It makes you look 20 years younger than your avatar pic.

That's part of the 35mm adapter magic!

[fishops]

I haven't gone the adapter route yet, but that's largely because I know a great DP with an EX3 and a letus ultimate

I want one for just doodling around though. My HV20 serves 2 purposes for me, a quick, cheap, easy to set up steadicam JR rig I can throw in a backpack for shooting events and ad hoc stuff, and a director's viewfinder. A 35 adapter would greatly help the latter function, as I could guesstimate focus distances and shot feasibility and save time when it comes to do the real thing.

[previdman]

Aramis, Thanks for the detailed response. Without slighting anybody else, I feel that probably you, CWildenrat and especially benkrebs hit the nail on the head as to the reasoning and proper use.

Like any optic, the quality of its components is paramount (and expensive) to a quality image. An 'effects' tool, is most appreciated (and tolerable) when applied sparingly at the hands of an experienced and knowledgeable storyteller. (Does it 'fit' the scene?)

And CWildenrat, I've seen "IFHY" before, liked the idea.. hated the vignetting in ALL the scenes. It was annoying and distracting, which is exactly my point.

More often than not, stuff like this falls into the category of "Just because you can do it, doesn't necessarily mean you should." IMHO.

And I gotta' disagree with you on the image quality of your still. While it does look 'really good' comparatively speaking, I know a straight shot sans the adaptor, would yield finer, better details in his face.

And if you want a softer look for closeups, they make diffusion filters for that.

JM2C but hey, everybody to their own. Thanks for replying!

[CWildenradt]

And I gotta' disagree with you on the image quality of your still. While it does look 'really good' comparatively speaking, I know a straight shot sans the adaptor, would yield finer, better details in his face.

I probably should have mentioned that this frame grab was taken by hitting the "prnt scrn" key while on a Vimeo page. It was not a frame grab from raw footage. So it has been thru CS3 export compression, Vimeo compression, and then JPEG file compression. Bearing this in mind, I think it would be unrealistic to claim that the same non-macro shot with a bare HV30 would yield any more noticeable detail; especially considering the subject has no freckles or wrinkles on his face.

To add, I have seen plenty of other footage with non-DIY type adapters (i.e. "pro quality" adapters) used on other cameras (XH-A1, HVX) to further back the notion that not all adapters degrade the picture quality noticeably. Bear in mind, I agree that some adapters do; mainly the DIY macro tube adapters. But it's not the case with all of them. Have a look at some Letus Ultimate footage for instance. There's also some GREAT Brevis footage out there shot with HV20's that is highly detailed.

[CWildenradt]

This is worth watching in HD. Letus Ultimate and an A1.

[ame="http://www.vimeo.com/1318976"]More Letus Ultimate Footage on Vimeo[/ame]


And here is some HV30/Brevis footage that looks pretty nice. Some blowouts happening in the highlights, but otherwise some great detail.

[ame="http://www.vimeo.com/1154024"]HV30 + Brevis35 - First Footage - HD on Vimeo[/ame]

[previdman]

Letus Ultimate and an A1.

Better than most but still not convinced image quality isn't compromised.

And here is some HV30/Brevis footage that looks pretty nice. Some blowouts happening in the highlights, but otherwise some great detail.

Agreed. Based on these two clips I would choose the Brevis over Letus Ultimate. The Brevis footage looks sharp, bright and very nice in spite of being shot on a camera more than three times the price of an HV.

Thanks for the examples. My OP was not to compare brands but to question the need for a 35 adaptor in the first place.

It all boils down to (like benkrebs said) how and when to use one, like any other piece of photographic accessory. But I don't believe the majority of people (at least those whose clips I've watched) possess neither the skill or need for a quality 35mm adapter setup. To settle on a cheap one or even DIY might be OK to play around with but shouldn't be considered for full time use or to expect professional results. And for those who counter the HV is not intended as a professional camcorder, I don't know too many home videographers who can, would or even should spend the money on one.

To put a cheap one on a wonderfully sharp HD camera like the HV20/30 just to say you have one makes no sense financially or aesthetically. I mean you have guys spending more money on their adapter rigs than their HV's getting nothing more than a seriously soft and IMO, degraded image. All in the name of artistic effect? Like I said, a classic case of "The Emperor's New Clothes."

JM2C.

[CWildenradt]

Fair enough. Perception is 99% of it I guess. But I think I'll leave it to the individuals to decide for themselves whether or not they need an adapter to suit their creative vision. After all, only they can know what they would like to create with their rigs.

[previdman]

Granted but as benkrebs so skilfully pointed out:

"...a good photographer/filmmaker will use the right equipment for the right shot."

To which I'll add: Having something and knowing how and when to use it effectively is more important than just having it.

There may be times when the diffused, vignetted look of a cheap, 35 adaptor or even just an improvised, McDonald's syrup cup for a GG might bring that certain quality to a scene but doubtful that it should be used throughout the whole movie ...and in every movie.

Finer points separating the pro's and semi-pro's from the think-they-are's, hope-to-be's and the "look I got me a 35mm adaptor...Yee-ha!" crowd.

[CycleWriter]

Fair enough. Perception is 99% of it I guess. But I think I'll leave it to the individuals to decide for themselves whether or not they need an adapter to suit their creative vision. After all, only they can know what they would like to create with their rigs.

Unfortunately, forums and video sharing sites are littered with people who think they need these things for some sort of aesthetic that will make them look like a real "filmmaker" and give instant credibility to their work. I guess we contribute to it somewhat with all the emphasis so many of our members put on "the film look" and the attraction these devices have. I still say that money is better spent developing story-telling skills, learning the craft and a sense of what makes a movie good. All this emphasis on the equipment is premature and wasted time and money for most. Just my opinion.