Oh, it's real alright. It's a box that lets you attach a 35mm or cine prime lens. That lens focuses an image on a spinning frosted glass and the camcorder macrofocuses on the image on the disc.

So you get the DOF and the benefits of a good lens.

But, it's expensive and you lose a few f-stops in the process.

It's very real, and you lose a stop in the process. We use them, love em'. Cheno has one as well.
With a Nikon 85mm 2.8 lens, it's a dream.

I've researched the adapters a little; I've just never seen this particular one; it seems to be a prototype.

One question: I just bought a v1u. I was going to buy an FX7 for a second camera. But the more I see footage from these, I love the look, but right now I can't afford an FX7 AND a full adapter setup. Anyone have an idea what it would look like if I used one adapter on a v1u and I just had a second camera like a HV20 without an adapter? Would it look bad... one camera with and one without a 35mm adapter during interview segments? The answer seems obvious... that I'd need two. It's just that a full setup... especially with rails, and either monitor or Follow Focus with some sort of flip setup would be about $2k.

Why not make your own adapter? It's not too hard. Have a look at www.jetsetmodels.info for instructions. You just need the patience and steay hand to put the parts together.

It won't look like the Redrock, but it will still 'pimp' the HV20 and make it look a little less consumerish.

Worley

If you want to make a camera look a little less consummerish a matte box works wonders. They actually serve a purpose too.

Bob.

Having moved from an on the shoulder to the small lightweight cameras
I see it as a step backwards.

Will the XDCAM EX have a better DOF with its larger pickup that one should wait?

How large is the pickup supposed to be on the EX? Many pros are holding out for 2/3" sensors on the XDCam HD cameras before even considering them. In my own experience, even that never comes close to 35mm film DOF.

These optical-printer-like adapters seem to be the way to go.

rob mack

Last I heard 1/2". I am afraid that going to 2/3" or 3/4" will double the price,
like the F330 which I know I can't get approved at $16,000.

M2 is a bit iff adapter because you don't get the inverting of the image as you do with Min35. Moreover i noticed that whne people pluck down the money for Mini35 then they also sped some $$ of serius glass and not $100 photo lenses. Here in NYC i got number of contacts of people with varius camera rigs attached to varius adapters and M2 i use only when there is no other option available.

Where can you buy this?

http://redrockmicro.com/redrock[/link] for the DOF adapter.

Sony has not released the XDCAM camera mentioned, expected this Fall. ($8000)

Redrock might also be later this year too.

Well, the EX should have shallower DOF than cameras with smaller sensors, but it's still not very shallow by film standards. But then, cameras with 2/3" sensors aren't shallow by that standard either. If you're really looking for that look then an adapter is the way to get it.

Rob

At T1.3 a Digiprime in front of a 2/3" sensor will give you a 35mm DOF and a wonderful image. Of course affording a camera with a 2/3" sensor is one thing, affording a set of those lenses is another.

Bob.

Been saving up to get one. If you think the pics are awesome, check out the video here, stunning:

Redrock Micro M2 Indie Bundle

The vid is just after the first paragraph.

- Ray
www.undergroundplanet.com

Has anyone used a manual zoom lens with one of these adapters? I'd hate to not have the ability to frame various shots. I've never bought a camera lens in my life and there are mass amounts of options. Spot mentions a 2.8 lens above; the article Ray links to states to purchase a 1.4. What about using either a Nikon 1.4 or 1.8 zoom lens: say 17-85mm or 35-70mm?

Edit: I'm not seeing ANYWHERE on the web a Nikon zoom lens at less than F/2.8.

Keeping in mind that I have never used one and really have no clue what I'm talking about, there is an article on the site that talks about using zoom lenses with the M2.

Angle of View

Specifically page two.

- Ray
www.undergroundplanet.com

Zooms going smaller than 2.8 will be rare, and exceptionally expensive.
We're using primes/fixed focal lengths, and have a couple of 55mm 1.6, they're relatively cheap.
I do wish that the RR could use Canon, as I have a huge collection of EF lenses for my DSLR.

>>>I do wish that the RR could use Canon,<<<
Why can't it? I suppose I should be looking on the RR site. But surely, at first order, a lens is a lens is a lens. If it's the lens mount, there are adapters.

Sir Spot,
I'm pretty sure that RR M2 will indeed use your Canon lenses.
You just have to change your mounting ring on the M2. I hear it's a simple matter, but have never tried it.

DOF Adapters or Cinema Lens Adapters are indeed for real. Not much use for run & gun or weddings where you move around quickly and need be zooming, but for serious indie or doc like the odd nature film I play with in the desert they are now almost a must for a top quality look.
You can find out more and specifically how to choose and get lenses for these adapters at a site I have here: <a href="http://lenses35.com"> DOF Lenses Main Page</a>

To reply to the Canon issue some Canon lenses are "auto iris" which means they stay open at full aperture with resuyltant no control over DOF. See explainations in detail and help on choosing lenses at <a href="http://lenses35.com/selection.html"> </a>

Is there a description of the wiring harness and how to make a "manual" control?

Want to make sure when there is no power full open? Hate to find out this last used
position and be closed. One of the sites that sells these adapters also has the
mounting rings.

For those who have edited DOF adapter footage using Vegas: what's the easiest way to flip the footage back right-side-up and "non-mirrored"?

Also, when rendering, do you have to change any settings given the fact that you've flipped the footage vertically and horizontally (e.g., would you need to change the field order)?