OT: Tiny G35 makes for big WOW!

Coursedesign wrote on 3/20/2006, 7:20 PM

Check out this beautiful short film shot with a tiny Cinemek G35 adapter on a DVX100a:

SIMILO

The small size of this DV camera adapter for 35mm SLR lenses allowed the film to be shot with simple means, see this photo.

It's easy to forget that we don't need 4K resolution to make great movies.

All that remains now is to add some scenes where people get shot, a car chase, some gangsta rap, and maybe a couple of thunderous space battles, and it should be ready for release.

Well, I guess I'm kidding.

This short is humbling, imho.

Back to post

Comments

GregFlowers wrote on 3/21/2006, 5:32 PM

There are a few workarounds that some are using for monitoring the inverted/rotated footage produced by most of these 35mm adaptors.

On most cameras you can strategically place a small magnet on or near the LCD screen to trick it into thinking its upside down. The resulting image on the camera's LCD screen will no longer be upside down, but it will still be backward left to right on screen.

Some people are using small LCD TVs (3 to 10+ inch) turned upside down connected to the video out of the camera. This will display the picture correctly.

RedRock is creating software that looks like it will be similar to DV Rack that will allow you to correctly monitor the footage on a laptop.

As far as flipping and rotating the image in post, Vegas can do that just fine. Just rotate the footage 180 degrees. If you use Cineform Connect HD for HDV capture, it has an option to flip/rotate it automatically so the footage is corrected at the time of capture.

A few new 35mm adaptors have the built in ability to flip the image internally. You will generally pay a higher premium for these.

GregFlowers wrote on 3/21/2006, 5:56 PM

As far as the quality of the Panasonic DVX100, I saw a documentary at Sundance this past year called "Clear Cut." It was a very good documentary and I watched it digitally projected. I was so impressed by the quality of the picture I thought it may have been shot on HDV or even HD. I specifically asked the filmaker what he shot with and he said he shot with a few Panasonic DVX100s. Granted I was sitting toward the rear of the theater, but no one I was with gave a single thought about what it was shot with. Even after my question they all commented that it looked good.

After viewing Clear Cut and being a part of the 48 Film Project a few times, I take the following thoughts with me:

1. As the quality of the content of the film increases, the bar for acceptable image quality decreases.

2. When lighted properly and digitally projected, even on a theatrical sized screen, the Panny is capable of producing an image that will be acceptable to the vast majority of people watching it.

3. The majority of average movie goers associate 24p with film and higher quality and 60i with TV and lower quality, all other things being equal. Most cannot express why they feel that way or even describe what exactly they see that is different. They say it just looks "more professional" or "more expensive". They do not even know what 24p or 60i is, but they can sense a difference. I do not say this as a 24p vs 60i comment, nor do I personally think 24p is in anyway some magic framerate, but I do believe most people have been conditioned to associate it with film and will accept it quicker and easier than 60i for theatrical presentations.

I use an FX1 and love it to death and would not trade it for the Panasonic. But for DV only, the Panny is tough to beat for cinematic material.

jlafferty wrote on 4/23/2006, 9:52 AM

A couple of addendums:

If you're looking to use Vegas with a 35mm adapter, I'd highly rec' Adam's Flip plugin -- it does a better job than Vegas' default tools of giving you near-realtime Preview performance while flipping the image.

The majority of average movie goers associate 24p with film and higher quality and 60i with TV and lower quality, all other things being equal.

I think this is true, though I'd bet it's even more true of shallow or variable DOF vs. typical video DOF.

I just wrapped testing with the DVX-100a and the adapter I will be releasing for sale soon, and aside from the edge smear which will be corrected in the final release model, I'm blown away by the results. I love that cam.

We did mixed shooting with both an 80-200 zoom and a standard 50mm lens and it's a mixed bag of fun and challenging to have full manual zoom and variable DOF back. Overall I think it's going to be a blast and really bring the quality of DV cinema into a new realm, and do so affordably.

Here's the test clips: with the 80-200 zoom, and with the 50mm.

- jim

DJPadre wrote on 4/23/2006, 10:04 AM

Jim, how much are we looking at for one of these adapters??

jlafferty wrote on 4/23/2006, 10:22 AM

Just under $600. I'll have final pricings and info on packaged accessories and warranty within the next week. There will be a major site overhaul at go-35.com that will include an ordering system, FAQ, gallery of clips and stills, etc.

ReneH wrote on 4/23/2006, 11:48 AM

I don't think the M2 can be used for run n gun type of filming.

jlafferty wrote on 4/23/2006, 1:21 PM

I think you're right. It's been one of my design goals to make my adapter as small, lightweight and simple to operate as possible. Nothing like handheld rack focusing :)

xjerx wrote on 4/23/2006, 8:35 PM

How did you achieve the widescreen image? Was it letterboxed in camera? Was it from an anamorphic lens? Was in the cinemek G35 or something else? The images are beautiful! If I hadn't read that you shot this with a DVX100a I would swear it wasn't SD.

Jeremiah