Sony FX1 using a LetusA 35mm adapter

Gerard Elmore wrote on 12/29/2005, 8:23 PM

There's whole of talk about how HDV format is inferior to anything the HVX200 Panny can do which has yet to be shipped and I have to agree with Spot that we should use what we have now at the moment to make stuff and not wait around hoping.

For years we kept playing around with different ways to make our video look more filmic and I really do think the answer is lighting and lenses...not so much the camera.

Check the trailer for my new little flick that we shot using the Letus 35mm adapter. (No Color correction, just raw footage)

www.sowagummybears.com/barry.wmv

I am super impressed with what this cheap adapter did to make the "very video look" of the Sony look very similar to film. The new panny and this 35 adapter will most likely be dangerous...and the adapter sells around $300 and works with SLR lenses that sell for about $100 to $200 on Ebay! While there are others coming out that are around the same price range...this one is the cheapest and seems to work pretty darn good.

Again, make due with what you got and remember there's a whole lot more to it than a better camera. There are a lot of toys to make you fly with what you already have.

Enjoy,

Gerard Elmore.

Comments

farss wrote on 12/30/2005, 1:39 AM

It's pretty hard to judge with such a low res video. The lighting is good.
Simple test you might like to try, shoot a SMPTE resolution chart with the native FX1 and then with the adaptor / SLR lens.
To my eyes apart from the shallow DOF (which is good) what detracts from the film look is the whole image looks soft and that's not at all filmic unless you've got a mist filter on the lens. At the point of focus the image should be razor sharp, that's what good optics and a medium with 4K res is all about.
If it's the adaptor doing that and not the encoding then for my money it's detracting from the film look.
The problem is that you simply cannot emulate what happens to light focused onto 35mm piece of film or a CCD by putting a piece of ground glass in place of the sensor and then imaging that image. By design the ground glass will cause light to go in every direction, a lot of it will be lost but some of will appear as blooming making the image softer than it should be. One solution would be to use a larger piece of ground glass and lenses made for large format cameras, that'd give an incredibly shallow DOF if you wanted it and less damage to the image.
Bob.

mark-woollard wrote on 12/30/2005, 7:26 AM

Gerard

I liked the shallow DOF, especially in the the kitchen shot at 1:06.

On closer inspection, I noticed visual distortion on the full left edge of the frame and slight distortion in the middle of the right edge of the frame, the latter not always visible. Can this be overcome in aquisition or just by masking/cropping in post?

Thanks for sharing.
Mark

Spot|DSE wrote on 12/30/2005, 10:49 AM

I don't know if that distortion is a compression artifact or the lens adapter. The RedRock M2 doesn't show this sort of artifact.
Either way, nice to see the creative works using the FX1 and a 35 adapter. These tools don't look exactly like film, no. But they offer a very unique look, and in my mind, that's really more what it's all about. Being different.

mjroddy wrote on 12/30/2005, 2:04 PM

You know someone is going to mention the copyrighted music, right?
I like the look quite a bit. As a promo, I'm not sure it worked, but the feel is top-notch.
I also noticed some kind of mess on the far left side. I didn't think it was "distortion," but it was definitely there and a bit distracting.
Your shooting was great. I liked the lighting. Composition was good. Actors were up to the challenge and believable. Like I said, I quite liked the look.

GregFlowers wrote on 12/30/2005, 2:46 PM

What lenses did you use? What settings did you use on the FX1 (60i, CF24, CF30?) Give us some more details and elaborate on the specifics of the shoot if you don't mind.

Gerard Elmore wrote on 12/30/2005, 4:54 PM

The left and right edges of the frame are actually from the adapter but it's fixed by cropping and pushing in a bit...

Doug is on the money, it's not exactly 35mm but it looks different and I would rather look different than the same. It looks really really great on a HD monitor and you can actually view bigger versions and the first minute of the film at www.sandust.net/barry

I got a temp track in right now. Yes, it's copyrighted music but this something I pieced really quickly just to show what the footage looks like instead of waiting to score the film...I don't like to cut trailers for short films as they are already pretty short but I thought I would share this with the group and some of my friends. But here are the specifics...

We used 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 55mm, 85mm, 105mm, and 200mm Nikon SLR lenses. Basic Lowell lighting kit. Total budget for the 15 minute film: $200

It was shot in 60i and later converted to 24p.

Thanks for the feedback...

G.

mjroddy wrote on 12/30/2005, 7:47 PM

Wow! Cool info Gerard! I'll have to watch that a few more times to see all the lens changes. I'm JUST now learning about 35mm lenses used on video productions. I purchased the Micro35 (M2) and am trying to find some good lenses on ebay. I can't wait for the unit to arrive for me to play with.
Do you have any other feedback on your Letus? I steared away from it based on some "reports" I read on DVinfo.net. That's why I went with the M2. But your footage looks great! I'm truly amazed.
Fortunately for my eyes, I can't really see "the film look." I can see "the video look" like a bat to the head, but once someone manipulates it a bit, like you did, it all looks great to me. I'd be VERY curious to see a head to head (or, side by side) of film to video. That's the only way I can really train my eyes, I'm afraid.
That Letus, in the right hands, looks great. You did well!

MH_Stevens wrote on 12/30/2005, 7:50 PM

Can someone please explain. I can find no link to this adapter at B&Herc. Does it screw into the lens filter ring and then take standard 35mm lenses? What's the deal?

Gerard Elmore wrote on 12/30/2005, 8:22 PM

http://www.letus35.com/ is where you can find info on the adapter.

My feedback on the adapter is that it has stuff on the left and right side of the frame (which is the glue for the ground glass) and you can see some lenses noise with movement...but that can be fixed by throwing on a film look to the whole thing and then it sort of looks like grain. With the lenses the wider you go, the more light you need but I think that's pretty much the same for any other adapter out there. They just released a new version that deals with the flipped and inverted image but we didn't use that one so I can't really say how good it works.

The difference between the FX1 and film is the color range is limited in the FX1 and the resolution just isn't quite there yet.

MH Stevens,

It screws onto your existing lenses and it takes SLR 35mm camera adapters and with modified versions of the adapter you can put pretty much any lenses you want on it. Canon or even Panavision lenses. But we simply used SLR lenses which are cheaper but aren't as fast as the more expensive lenses.

MH_Stevens wrote on 12/30/2005, 10:16 PM

Thanks and I'm sure with wet photographers a dying breed there will be plenty of cheap SLR lenses soon. How do you balance the focal lengths of the the SLR lenses with the zoom position on the FX1?

Gerard Elmore wrote on 12/31/2005, 12:05 PM

First you focus the FX1 lenses on the ground glass without a lenses on it, then you use the fixed lens that's attached to it...it's kind of hard to use for ENG shoots as you can't really zoom, you can only change lenses and move the camera. The lower the number, the wider and more focus everything gets...the higher the number, the closer and more out of focus everything gets...if that makes any sense.

Happy New Year and good luck.

MH_Stevens wrote on 12/31/2005, 1:26 PM

Yes but at what focal length (zoom position) do you have the FX1? Is any one position preferable?

Gerard Elmore wrote on 12/31/2005, 5:00 PM

Ah, not too sure. My friend dusty shot it with my his FX1 with my other friend Scott ACing and I merely directed for the day but I took notes on how we did it.