35mm Lens Adapters

[migitmatt]

Hey! I want to learn how to do that really cool effect where the camera focus' in on the main character and everything else in the background gets blurred out, any thoughts?

Oh and if I can I'm gonna try the pumpkin carving contest! Is it open to UK(ers)?

[nooneimportant77]

well there are tricks you can do with the camera, but only if you have ALOT of control over the camera, it can be done in post, you'd have to roto out your character and then fade in a blur in the BG, you could green screen it, but i think people on this site are a little green screen happy and i dont think its totally nessissary.

actually an easier way to do it in post is just make an oval mask around your character, feather it alot, and blur out the area that is not masked, that should look pretty good. just be sure to feather the mask and play with the expansion/contraction to get it just right

[migitmatt]

Cool, cheers.

[GingaNic]

Just use manual focus and focus on the main character, as long as he/she properly in the foreground the focus will be on him/her not the background.... thus blurring the background... Auto prevents this. It depends on just how blurry you want it and what camera you have....

As long as you're not moving about too much it should be stable....

And yes the pumpkin comp is open to the UK...

[New Spark Films]

If you're going to green screen something for a different reason, add a gaussian blur but don't just green screen it for that reason.

[Scott]

Just use manual focus and focus on the main character, as long as he/she properly in the foreground the focus will be on him/her not the background.... thus blurring the background... Auto prevents this. It depends on just how blurry you want it and what camera you have....

As long as you're not moving about too much it should be stable....

And yes the pumpkin comp is open to the UK...

You might also want to try changing f-stops if your camera will allow you to. If you raise the number of f-stops, your depth of field will decrease, causing the blurring.

[Crosius]

You're chasing the elusive narrow depth of field shot.
You can narrow your depth of field a little with f-stop adjustment,

-BUT-

You can never match the narrow depth of field you'll see in movies shot on film with an un-modified video camera. This has to do with the size of the sensor in the camera. In a film camera, there's typically a chunk of 35mm film in the focus-plane of the lens. In a consumer-level video camera, the sensor is typically some small fraction of an inch. Because of the way lenses work, this imposes an upper limit on how narrow you can make your DOF using a video camera.

Most consumer video cameras, and most prosumer cameras with fixed lenses will never be able to produce that dreamy DOF where the actor's face is in focus, but their own hair isn't. Even the narrow DOF required to to that soap-opera dialogue shot where one actor is filmed over the other's shoulder and only the speaker is kept in focus isn't going to look as soft or extreme on a video camera. You need to recreate the large area of the film to get truly narrow DOF.

There are two solutions:

1. Buy a camera with a bigger sensor. This is why they are building RED ONE's for use in Hollywood. The sensor in the RED ONE is a massive, single CMOS that acts as a drop in replacement for a chunk of 35mm film. As a result, the RED ONE can use film-camera lenses and get that narrow depth of field. Unfortunately, the RED ONE also has a base price north of $20k, so this is not the "Indy Way"

2. Use a 35mm DOF adapter. There are many companies that offer adapters to connect your camera to a 35mm camera / film lens. These adapters employ an film-sized internal ground-glass screen on which the 35mm lens projects, which means your camera is taking a picture of the image on that glass. This will accurately record the narrow DOF caused by the mathematical relationship between the 35mm lens and the ground-glass focus plane. Most of the DIY solutions invert the image, so you have to flip your camera over, or your monitor, or film inverted and flip the footage in post-production. Also, these things make your camera set-up very long ( 35mm Lens + Adapter + Camera) so you usually need to have some sort of mount that can hold all that gear safely and securely.

There are DIY guides for building such adapters, and I've included a couple of links to commercial units.

Links:

RED ONE: here (http://www.red.com/) (strictly for drooling over / techno-fetishism)

DIY DOF Adapter:
- Article & links here (http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/10/35mm_dof_adapter_project_on_a.html)
- Another project thread here (http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=612795)
- Yet another one here (http://www.jetsetmodels.info/tutorials.htm)

35mm DOF Adapters:
- Redrock M2 (http://www.redrockmicro.com/micro35.html)
- Zacuto system (http://www.zacuto.com/Zacuto_DOF_Adapter.htm)
- indie 35's H@ (http://www.indie35.com/)
- SGpro (http://www.sgpro.co.uk/pages/thesgpro/thesgproframeset.html)
- The Letus 35 (http://www.adapterplace.com/index.php) - one of the few adapters that properly inverts the image.

[Grenadis Productions]

green screen happy are you mad im not green screen happy

or am i?

nah i dont really use green screen only if i really need to i usually do films which don't require a lot of green screening

[edwardlavender]

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2536/1264186056lgo5.jpga pic from my buddies movie's behind the scenes.

automaton transfusion (http://www.myspace.com/atransfusion) (the trailer is on the video page)

This is just an example of what your camera might look like if you choose to go the 35mm adapter route.

The results are amazing and it gives your camera a somewhat professional look.

-zac

[Fishermannen]

Use your camera's zoom and lock the focus on the actor. Naturally you'll have to move your camera further away and this can be difficult if you have limited space, but it looks pretty good.

[DeadFishProductions]

Hey there. I own a Canon xm2 (or gl2 in American-speak) and I was just wondering what is the best thing I can do to achieve a sense of depth of field. I have looked into depth of field converters but they all seem pretty expensive.

So what things can I do to my camera to try and get the background out of focus.

[FreshMentos]

Before you start shooting, zoom in on your object. That should help a little bit. But you're still going to get the best results if you use a 35mm adapter, because it gives you a really shallow depth of field. If you want to see what a shallow depth of field looks like on a GL2, click here (http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30559&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=35mm+adapter+gl2&start=30) you will see some pictures towards the bottom of the page. Those were taken with a GL2 and a DIY 35mm adapter.

[devin]

Couple things you can try:
1) make sure you are using as low a fstop as possible, if it can go to f1.6, set it there. Lower fstop = more DOF.
2) If you are trying to shoot a static subject, instead of framing with the camera very close to the subject, move the camera really far back and zoom in to match the framing you want, this should increase the DOF even though the fstop is higher. Obviously this will not work in every situation, but its worth a try. Just remember that as you zoom in, any little movement in the camera is amplified so make sure your camera is really stable.
3) If you have after effects (or another program that can do multiple layers and masks) and a lot of time, you can mask around your subject duplicate the layer, and blur the background. This won't be perfect, but it might give you the effect that you want.

http://dvinfo.net/articles/optics/dofskinny.php

that page has some pretty helpful information in regards to DOF in relation to DV.

[robby453]

how much do 35mm adapters cost?

[Crosius]

They vary. I posted some product links in this thread (http://forum.indymogul.com/showthread.php?p=16893#post16893). The Letus products seem to be near the optimal compromise between price & performance for consumer use.

[SPARC]

"1) make sure you are using as low a fstop as possible, if it can go to f1.6, set it there. Lower fstop = more DOF. "

I think you have this backward: Lower (smaller number) F-Stop is LESS DOF. Higher number (larger F number) is a smaller diameter aperature and hence greater DOF.

[devin]

haha yeah, I meant to say less, the rest of the statement is true for what they initially wanted though. Thanks for picking that up

[DeadFishProductions]

Awesome thanks... I'll give them a try.,

[rrh]

"1) make sure you are using as low a fstop as possible, if it can go to f1.6, set it there. Lower fstop = more DOF. "

I think you have this backward: Lower (smaller number) F-Stop is LESS DOF. Higher number (larger F number) is a smaller diameter aperature and hence greater DOF.I usually try to say shallower and deeper DOF; some people might get confused and think "greater" DOF = more blur.

[forkazoo]

"shallower" and "deeper" is probably good. I may have to make a point of doing that myself, because a lot of people say "More DOF" to mean "More of the Depth Of Field *effect*" with a blurrier background.

I usually just resort to saying "blurrier background" and "sharper background" which makes me sound like an idiot, but is at least safe. :)

To the OP: If you really want blurry DOFfy backgrounds, shoot on a green screen and blur the background to your heart's content in compositing. A standard video camera without a wacky extra lens adapter just won't work like a film camera.

[CDB]

I can't remember which way, but opening or closing your aperture should do the trick.
Just remember to adjust for the extra/less light allowed through the lens.

[Crosius]

Aperture is what f-stop measures.
The lower the f-stop value, the larger the aperture.
The larger the aperture, the narrower the depth of field.

There is a limit on how narrow you can make the depth of field that depends on the geometric relationship between the lens, aperture and the size of the CCD in the camera.

Since consumer-level cameras have small sensors (typically smaller than 1/4"), they cannot produce very narrow depth of field. Minimum DOF will typically be measured in many inches - even feet.

Since film cameras have a large "sensor" (a 16-, 35- or even 70mm piece of film), they can create a much narrower depth of field. As narrow as a few millimeters deep.

[DeadFishProductions]

Thanks for the help so far... I have read into this and apparently getting an additional lens may help. Is this true?

If so, which lens will help me achieve the narrowest depth of field a wide angle convertor, a wide tele lens or a macro lens??

[NaziActionFigure]

If you're still interested in an adapter, you can find some pretty cheap ones at letus35.com (http://www.letus35.com). You can get the flipped for 700$.

[DeadFishProductions]

I have actually looked at the letus adapters... I think they're still a little out of my price range... (I was hoping not to spend any money at all but nay mind) I read through the manual and checked out the f-stop aperture settings on the GL2/XM2. So I'm gonna give those a try.

[SPARC]

I usually try to say shallower and deeper DOF; some people might get confused and think "greater" DOF = more blur.

Most people I know associate the word greater with more, so greater DOF = more DOF, not more blur which would be less DOF. I agree that the use of 'shallower' or 'deeper' may be less confusing.

[DeadFishProductions]

Most people I know associate the word greater with more, so greater DOF = more DOF, not more blur which would be less DOF. I agree that the use of 'shallower' or 'deeper' may be less confusing.

That was just bloody confusing...

[extramontana]

I've seen some very cool results with one of these.

Does anyone know either a inexpensive and highly compatible model, or a do-it-yourself that doen't make my head spin?

I did some searching, got really confused, and now I'm here asking if anyone has that super easy fix that will make me jump up it the air screaming "THANK YOU HELPFUL FORUM USERS!!!"

Thanks

[jburas]

http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index2.htm

[Crosius]

Letus (http://www.letus35.com/) makes some of the least expensive adaptors that have vibrating ground-glass plates and double-invert the image so you don't have to flip your camera over (or flip all your footage in post).

[NaziActionFigure]

I'd recommend Letus as well.

[nooneimportant77]

so i'm considering, making a 35mm adaptor, and i've found a few different plans. some show me how to make "vibrating" or even a "rotating" adaptor, but why do i want that exactly?

i would totally build that kind if its better, or is a look i'd rather have, but i don't even really know why the hell it should vibrate.

thanks.

[jburas]

Vibrating or spinning the glass makes the imperfections in the glass unnoticeable by moving them so fast that they become blurred out. It makes the image look sharper.

[Imbender]

Vibrating or spinning the glass makes the imperfections in the glass unnoticeable by moving them so fast that they become blurred out. It makes the image look sharper.

Yep, makes it lets grainy. I have seen some good stills from a static (non vibrating/rotating) model but the ground glass was bought. Typically vibrating or rotating work better however they often emit a small amount of noise. Not usually a problem if you are using an external mic or if the adaptor is well insulated.

I've been working on a 0 budget project, rotating type. Keep in mind these work better with camcorders with good low light because they lower the amount of light by a noticable amount, the corners being the most effected, And make sure you have lots of patience.

[Imbender]

I'd recommend Letus as well.

Only problem is there cheapest model is 900 dollars

[WesScog]

I THINK, I could be wrong, but my idea for this, is to make the image look more like film.

There is a subtle almost imperceptible flicker with any film camera, no matter how precise, making the image vibrate ever so softly, I would imagine might add a similar subtle flicker.

While the spinning can subtly change the texture of the film and might give it a bit more of a film 'look'.

But that would be my hypothesis, it gives it a film look by simulating effects of a real film camera, but in an analog-mechanical setup, instead of a digital alteration like if you added it artificially in post.

EDIT: Ignore me, Buras' explanation sounds way better.

[nooneimportant77]

ok so if it is an option building a vibrating or spinning model is preferable ?

[rrh]

EDIT: Ignore me, Buras' explanation sounds way better.Especially since I know people who have used rotating or vibrating adaptors on digital still cameras.

[nooneimportant77]

i'm thinking about making one, once you see what it takes its not all that tricky. check out this pdf

http://www.jetsetmodels.info/pics/basic_35mm_dof.pdf

[Imbender]

I'm working with what I have atm though. I don't feel like spending 2-300 dollars on a DIY. Luckly I have some old lenses laying around from an slr that no longer works. My ground glass is actually a clear cd that I put some wax on. Then Im spinning it with an old motor from a cd player that no longer works. It seems to do well (the prototype). just need to get it all inside an eclosure some how and make sure the distances (camera to cd, and cd to lend) are at the right length away. The only issue is the loss of light since my camcorder has bad lowlight. However I do have an xl1 wich is a huge improvement in lowlight from what I have so... I might have to rework the design a little.

[Imbender]

ok so if it is an option building a vibrating or spinning model is preferable ?

Yes, unless you plan on using your in camera microphone. Which is usually not a good idea in the first place.

[extramontana]

I appreciate all the help. I'll keep researching.
I don't think I'm to that point yet considering I shoot with a 300 dollar camera. Soon, though...

[redtail5]

ok im shhoting frome a digital point and shoot http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=183&modelid=14108

i have some minolta 35mm lenses i would like to add on is tere a ay i can do it? three is a ring that comes off cani atatch somthing to it like that?

i dont want to ruin my lenses!

[jburas]

No, sorry. You'll need an SLR camera.

[redtail5]

even with that hoop arounf the lense that comes off ?

[jburas]

No.

[nooneimportant77]

yes, you can make a 35mm adaptor for that camera.

i dont think it would be worth it though.

[redtail5]

to much money?

[nooneimportant77]

yes, and with a camera like that, the quality wouldn't be very good.

you'd spend lots of money making it fit to that camera, and end up with not so good results.

[jburas]

An adapter and lens would be bigger than the camera itself, which is completely impractical. And even if you made an adapter, that camera doesn't have any kind of mount to attach it. No mount, no lens.

[zermato]

Hey Indy Mogul, I am wondering how to get that awesome 35mm film effect without having to dish out a thousand bucks on one of those 35mm/depth of field adapters. Is there a cheaper way to achieve this effect other then in post production?

[Steve Nelson]

I'd say the most cost effective alternative is to build your own D.O.F. adapter. We plan on, EVENTUALLY, building one for Weekend Extra. But it will be some time before we tackle such a big project. But there are tutorials out there, for building your own, if you do the research.

[redtail5]

dose anyone know how to make one of these?
please make a vid if you can

sorry i forgot the link.


this is waht i want to make http://youtube.com/watch?v=aSz-HaF4Uo8

[MiniMogul27]

I don't personally know but there is a how-to on this site (http://www.microfilmmaker.com)

[jburas]

Video tutorial (http://jetsetmodels.info/pics/diy_35_dof_xvid_15fps.avi)
Detailed instructions (http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index.htm)

[redtail5]

thanx guys!

[redtail5]

anyone know how to make this ??? http://youtube.com/watch?v=aSz-HaF4Uo8

[nooneimportant77]

anyone know how to make this ??? http://youtube.com/watch?v=aSz-HaF4Uo8

read the video info.

[redtail5]

it just gives you parts and plum8ing adapters can be anything, i need help :(

[nooneimportant77]

i think "plumbing adaptors" are just tubes with threads.

read up on how the other adaptors are made, and once you have a pretty good understanding, it's easy to see how he set up his adaptor.

[redtail5]

thanx, i will post again if i need more help. i'm triing to desing a cheap, yet good adapter.

macro lense (hommade)

actual adapter (hommade)

focusing screan (still choosing real or ikea bag type one)

and end cap w/ hole are the basic parts to it :D

[MiniMogul27]

Try making a focusing screen yourself. Try starting with a CD or a microscope slide and some wax. Ikea bag is crap.

[redtail5]

i was looking at this tutorial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivErUHl-Yo

but want to use pvc rather than expensivel ultra violet filters, can i put the focusing screen infront of the lense rahter than the camera and have the filters closer to the camer then the lense?

[nooneimportant77]

rather than expensivel ultra violet filters

UV filters will cost about the same as PVC

[redtail5]

pvc is liek 1 buck a foot for like 2" vrs each ring costing 10 bucks

[redtail5]

UV filters will cost about the same as PVC

uv filter WILL work better for diferant lenses so do u know wer ei can get hella cheap ones?

[nooneimportant77]

i don't know where you're paying 10 bucks for UV filters, UV filters are pretty much just glass.

you should be able to get them at any camera store.

[jburas]

I'm all for being "indy," but at some point you're going to have to pay for some things.

[redtail5]

but if i can get it for cheaper then it's better!

[nooneimportant77]

i chringe when people say "for cheap" or "for cheaper"

and actually no its not better if you can get it for less money, its probably worse, its just less money.

[redtail5]

BUT I'M POOR!!! 10 bucks is the cheapest uv filter i can find, were can you get cheper ones????

[nooneimportant77]

here's an 8 dollar one

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36139-REG/Konica_Minolta_7046203_46mm_UV_Haze_Glass.html

but it could be the wrong thread size, just go to a camera store UV filters are probably the most common filter.

[redtail5]

i live in the middle of no were the closest camera stor is 20 minuts away and everthigns is expensive as hell

[nooneimportant77]

ebay?

[redtail5]

my mom wont let me buy frome ebay :( idk why

[redtail5]

deleted by user

[redtail5]

do i need any space between my focusing screen and macro lense?

[redtail5]

i just found this bellows thing that will be PERFECT for my adapter! I have never ordered from e-bay before (still triing to convince my mom ) , but do you guys ever have problemsordering from ebay??

[redtail5]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ljyHI9HLBuI thats the basic plan, please help

[MiniMogul27]

Sounds like it would work. Try the makeshift screen but have a contingency plan.

[nooneimportant77]

it'll be a bitch and a half to get all that in the bellows, and you'll want to just buy a macro. you can probably use that plastic as a focusing screen.

[redtail5]

i'm not tring to get it all in the bellows, but the bellows are used like an extention tube for slr acams so i was thinking of using that rather than uv filters :) (more expensive but i can use it on my rebel 2 so...)

[redtail5]

but, do i need any space between my macro lense and my focusing screen and what kind of macro lense should i use?

[nooneimportant77]

i'm not tring to get it all in the bellows, but the bellows are used like an extention tube for slr acams so i was thinking of using that rather than uv filters :) (more expensive but i can use it on my rebel 2 so...)

then you don't need the belows. its cheaper to just buy the extension tubes.

[Jobless in Cleveland]

I just watched your video. it looks like it can work.

How about a test?

Without the bellow, assembling the lens, screen and filters in a line. Try that as a test. This way, you can work out the space of everything before investing in a bellow.

You can make a bellow (no nice support rods)... I was googling 'diy make build large format camera' (did I mention that I have a background in photography?). You can use wood as support during this test phase of your lens/bellow/filter/focusing screen.


as far as ebay goes, next to each seller's name, there is a number... number means how many transaction they done. There is a % for people's opinion about the seller. I assume you know this already...still, hard to get pass your mom.

What I do is find a seller who accepts money order (or ask if they are willing to take it even if they say PayPal only). Bid on the stuff. Have it ship to your parent's work.

Problem solved...no personal info, no ebay-seller-turn-stalker. Money order means no personal check sent...no personal info release. No CCard used, no one to rip off the account number.


good luck on the project

[redtail5]

as it is cheaper to buy extention tubes, they are not adjustable like the bellows, which is some thing i might wont for my t2 rebel eos canon 35mm slr cam, so that just depends on what i want for macro on my still pics :)

[gcubedproductions]

here's an 8 dollar one

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36139-REG/Konica_Minolta_7046203_46mm_UV_Haze_Glass.html

but it could be the wrong thread size, just go to a camera store UV filters are probably the most common filter.
You can buy adapters from BH for real cheap. I don't have a link, though.

[FreshMentos]

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I'll try to help anyway. I remember you posting a thread about you wanting to get a Panasonic DVX-100A or a GL2, if you got either those, check out this really great tutorial from the fxhome forums: http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32506 (http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32506)

[redtail5]

thanx FreshMentos (http://forum.indymogul.com/member.php?u=10463) i think i like the dvx becaus eof all the amazing fetures,my mom's friends' doughter is a pro film making and smy mom thinks she can get a dsicount for me on the camera that she thinks is the best for me :) i will look at your link :)

[redtail5]

how mutch will it cost to make this http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.472981/it.A/id.15/.f in total?? after u buy all the part, did anyone make this?

[FreshMentos]

thanx FreshMentos (http://forum.indymogul.com/member.php?u=10463) i think i liek the dvx becaus eof all the amazing feturs, but my mom's friens' doughter is a pro film making and she thinks she can get a dsicount for me on the camera that she thinks is the best for me :) i will look at your link :)My translator on my dashboard couldn't decipher that. Mind editing your post to English? ;)

[redtail5]

better?

also, anyone know how to make a the glass spin in a diy redrock, i think that will help me

[redtail5]

were can i get a thick 3" diamiter plexiglass lid?

[lasalite]

can i use cannon still shot lenses on a cannon video cam?

[WesScog]

Canon, no extra 'n'.

But like 35mm lens from a still camera? Yea, I don't see why you couldn't, you'd just need to get a converter to fit between them, which unfortunately can be a pain to find.

[nooneimportant77]

the image will be upside down and circular, but yeah you could. also you'd have to find the correct distance between the video cameras lens and the other lens or it'll never be in focus. and you'd need an adaptor so the bayonet (is that what they still call it?) mount can screw onto (unless you're on one of the big canons) your video camera.

[lasalite]

SLR to video no video to slr

[jburas]

You'll have to make one of these:
DIY 35mm Adapter + Tutorial (http://forum.indymogul.com/showthread.php?t=2697)

[lasalite]

wow, uh, just wow i dont have 180 if i buy a gl2...

[Super Cameraman]

I've been lurking around the forums for a while now, so even though this is my first post, I'm not what's known as a "noob." Just a heads up.

Anyway, 35mm Adapters. They're a special lens adapter that let you use lenses from 35mm cameras on a camcorder. This allows you to have a MUCH shallower depth of field, and having a more Hollywood style appearance to your footage. I know they can be built very cheap. I've seen it done. What I haven't seen is an easy to follow tutorial.

Get what I'm saying?

I found a decent tutorial video, but I'm positive Indy Mogul could do way better.

[redtail5]

do you want spinning or static??

for spinning check this out, and mod it for cheaper http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index2.htm

for static i think these 3 are good (in order from lest money to koast money
http://www.j5studios.com/projects/35mmDOFforDV/

http://youtube.com/watch?v=s_TetHySQx4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PivErUHl-Yo&feature=related

also try the search buttont, the search button is your friend!

[Super Cameraman]

I've used the search button... I didn't find anything good.

Are spinning one's any better? What's the difference?

[redtail5]

with a spiining adapter, you dont notice the imprefections on the focusing screan (thats why they mske the redrock m2 spin)

but if you hsve s good VERRY clean focusing screen, static will work nicely too, they are also easier to make : )

[Scott]

I've been lurking around the forums for a while now, so even though this is my first post, I'm not what's known as a "noob." Just a heads up.

Anyway, 35mm Adapters. They're a special lens adapter that let you use lenses from 35mm cameras on a camcorder. This allows you to have a MUCH shallower depth of field, and having a more Hollywood style appearance to your footage. I know they can be built very cheap. I've seen it done. What I haven't seen is an easy to follow tutorial.

Get what I'm saying?

I found a decent tutorial video, but I'm positive Indy Mogul could do way better.


I don't think a 35mm adapter is an effect.

[redtail5]

I don't think a 35mm adapter is an effect.
when did he say it was an effect? The dolly was'nt an effect if u r reffering to "fx" requests

[Scott]

when did he say it was an effect? The dolly was'nt an effect if u r reffering to "fx" requests


But there's a difference between a dolly and a lens.

[redtail5]

But there's a difference between a dolly and a lens.

niether are effects though

[NaziActionFigure]

If I were you, I would just buy one.
There's a newer one that's very cheap called the RNG35.

www.rng35.com (http://www.rng35.com)

[Scott]

niether are effects though

Exactly.

[DeadFishProductions]

Ugh! Buy things?!... Ugh!

[Super Cameraman]

If I were you, I would just buy one.
There's a newer one that's very cheap called the RNG35.

www.rng35.com (http://www.rng35.com)

$549 is cheap? I could buy a whole new camera for that much.


I actually just built one today, to see how easy it was. Turns out, it's really easy, and cheap too. I spent a total of zero dollars. It's not the greatest quality, but for free, I'm not complaining. I might even make a video tutorial on how to build one.

Just a little question, are 35mm cameras called 35mm cameras because of the size of the film, or because of the lens? Because, it turns out, my lens had to be 35mm away from my focusing filter to focus.

I'll post some shots when it's light out tomorrow.

[HiroAJK]

Does anyone know how the RNG compares to the Letus 35? Letus seems to be almost twice the price. Im quite new to this adapter stuff. From the RNG35 picture, it seems theres no place for the battery to go?

[ctvfilms]

does anybody know what this does,

and if it fits on a Sony DCR SR82

heres the link: http://www.redrockmicro.com/ (http://www.redrockmicro.com/)

[nooneimportant77]

http://www.redrockmicro.com/about.html

[SivartAlappesProductions]

It's a 35mm adapter and I want one!

[toppie34]

wow amazing prices no to high compared to others and i love their message if ill become more proffesional i will do it

[redtail5]

it fits any cam with step up or down rings.

[SivartAlappesProductions]

it fits any cam with step up or down rings.

You can even mount it to cameras that don't have rings! I saw a picture once of a Canon ZR700 (which is what I own) with a redrock thrown on it. I drooled a little bit.

[ctvfilms]

umm... im sorry, what is a step up/step down ring?

[redtail5]

its a ring that screws on your camera (like 45mm 58m 72mm etc) on one end and on the other end you can screw filters and things that have a diferant mm size on the end

[ctvfilms]

oh.. i see, i'm thinking about getting a panasonic HVX 2000 and eventually getting the full Redrock set up

[thepie]

oh.. i see, i'm thinking about getting a panasonic HVX 2000 and eventually getting the full Redrock set up

From personal experience i would recommend the Letus Extreme. There is much less light loss through the Letus, and I find their whole system to be a bit more sturdy.

[MitchellStafiej]

So I've been looking at 35mm Adapters for a good year now and was wondering once I purchase the adapter will I have to purchase a lens to go on the adapter?

Thanks.

Mitch

[elscottomagnifico]

Yes, with a 35mm adapter you will need a lens. The adapter is essentially a piece of equipment that lets the image come through the lens of your choice and display on a focusing screen in the adapter. Your cam will then focus on that image and record it.

[MitchellStafiej]

Yes, with a 35mm adapter you will need a lens. The adapter is essentially a piece of equipment that lets the image come through the lens of your choice and display on a focusing screen in the adapter. Your cam will then focus on that image and record it.
And this lens I assume has to be a 35mm lens? Which are quite expensive if my assumptions are correct?

Mitch

[Fisherking]

Depends on your definition of expensive. You can use any standard-mount lens -- a lot of low-budget films use Nikon SLR lenses, which aren't all that expensive. A cinema lens will be greater quality, but in a pinch you can use a still lens which will set you back a few hundred dollars at most.

[elscottomagnifico]

On a budget or to start out and learn your adapter, you can get a used SLR lens (Ebay can be your friend if you research)

[MitchellStafiej]

Thanks so much for your help! One more question, just to check, where would I be able to find a cinema lens for purchase?

EDIT: Sorry for all of the questions but this is the first time I'm really looking into lenses. What sort of still lenses are we looking at? 28-80? Any specifics that I would need to know about?

Thanks.

Mitch

[nooneimportant77]

as long as the lens has the same sort of mount as the adaptor you can use it, for instance if the adaptor comes with a Nikon D mount, you'll buy Nikon lenses.

different lenses do different things though so be sure to pick what you want. used lenses at camera stores can go pretty cheap and give some really cool results even if they're not PERFECT.

[youngspeildberg]

I have a question: I have 37 mm wide conversion lens for my trusty Sony Digital 8 camcorder; what is the difference between 37 mm and 35 mm?

[nooneimportant77]

the term "35mm lens adaptor" is a little confusing.

the ##mm thing is refering to the focal length of the lens.

here's a good explination of what the different focal lengths mean.

http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm

EDIT: however don't get it confused with the thread size of the camera/lens, for instance i was using a 25mm lens on my slr camera today, but it was a 52mm thread.

[jburas]

I have a question: I have 37 mm wide conversion lens for my trusty Sony Digital 8 camcorder; what is the difference between 37 mm and 35 mm?

Your lens is called a conversion lens. It means that it attaches to an existing lens. 37mm probably refers to thread size, the diameter of the screw part of the existing lens.

The lenses for a DOF adapter are lenses for a 35mm SLR camera. Here the "35mm" does not refer to the size of the lens itself, but the type of camera to which it normally attaches (more specifically, the size of the film it shoots).

Even more confusingly, each lens has a focal length also expressed in mm. Wide-angle lenses have a low number, like 20mm. Telephoto lenses have a higher number, like 100mm. Then there are zoom lenses that can change focal lengths, like 20-100mm.

AAAAAND every lens has a thread size, which refers to the size of the thread for filters (like the thread size of your conversion lens).

[ClayOgre]

If you look on a lens, it should have a number "NN"mm, and right next to it will be a tiny circle with a diagonal slash through it. This is your filter size as has been mentioned above. On the lens will be also the focal length and the aperture (lens opening size), an example would be f 1.8 (this is very common for "normal" lenses for 35 mm cameras, usually 50mm in focal length).

Zoom lenses will have a double designation for focal length, i.e. 70-210 (this is a common 35mm zoom range). A lot of zoom lenses will also have a dual maximum aperture, like f3.5-5.6, since it is cheaper to make lenses with variable maximum apertures. The "kit" lenses that come with cameras like the Canon Digital Rebel XTi, are of this type.

Continuous aperture lenses are more expensive. I have a Sigma 18-55 f 2.8 zoom for my Canon Rebel XT, it cost me something like $400 new, whereas that same lens, with a variable maximum aperture (the Canon kit lens) was right around $100.

The "f" number or f-stop represents the ratio of the lens's diameter to it's focal length. The fastest 35mm lenses commonly available are usually f 1.4 and sometimes f1.2. Your basic 50mm lens in the f 1.8-2.0 range will usually run less than a hundred dollars. An f1.4-1.2 lens will be $250-$400, depending on the manufacturer. Both Canon and Leica at one time made 50mm f 1.0 lenses (use these for taking a picture of a black cat in a coal bin at midnight by the light of the moon.), Lenses that fast run about three thousand dollars.

There are three kinds of lenses. Zooms, Primes, and variable focal length lenses (which you don't see any more). Zooms you are well familiar with. Primes are single focal length lenses. They tend to be sharper and faster than zooms. Zooms are a lot of times cheaper than primes, though fast continuous aperture zooms, like a 70-210 f 2.8, will run you about $1800.

Variable focal length lenses are like zooms, but they do not hold focus through the zoom range. I don't think anybody even makes them any more.

[WesScog]

Most of the 35mm Adapter threads merged.

[xjakknifex]

If anyone wants already constructed DIY 35mm adapters this guy sells them:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZbarcode1998

You will still need to buy the lenses.

[Ronster]

Should I buy a 35mm adapter to fix onto a cheaper camera like a Canon HV20?
Or should I just buy something more along the lines of a Panasonic DVX 100b?
They would basically cost the same.
If I get the more expensive camera, I'll have more manual control, but not same control over the DOF like the adapter allows.
But if I get the cheaper one, I don't have as much manual control, BUT I could get the adapter.

That's my little pickle.

[MitchellStafiej]

I also have a similar question. I'm thinking of either getting a 35mm adapter for my Canon HV20 OR purchasing a Canon XL1. I'm not sure which one will benefit me more...

Mitch

[redtail5]

you can make adapters for really cheap and there if you open your Iris and put an ND filter on your camera you also get the shallow depth of field so in my opinion you guys would benefit much more with a prosumer camera. the dvx100b is great but if you have the cash for a xl2 i would buy a xh a1,

[elscottomagnifico]

If you get the HV20 and adapter, you'll be able to get cool looking footage with the depth of field you want in HD, with the DVX or XL you'll get tons of manual control in SD. You can control the shutter, aperture and gain with the HV20 but it does take a workaround and extra time every shot setup. Unless you want the more professional looks of the other cameras and easier to use/more plentiful control, the HV20 with adapter will give excellent footage and most likely be a better choice (Unless you are sure you will not need more than SD resolution footage anytime soon).

I'd see a better argument in the area of an HV20 with adapter vs. an XHA1. Both shoot HD resolution, but it comes down to the issue of preference toward lower cost and depth of field or more professional and manually controlled.

[thepie]

you can make adapters for really cheap and there if you open your Iris and put an ND filter on your camera you also get the shallow depth of field so in my opinion you guys would benefit much more with a prosumer camera. the dvx100b is great but if you have the cash for a xl2 i would buy a xh a1,


Open iris and ND filter don't even really come close to a shallow DOF like 35mm camera or adapter will, but it does help a little bit.

Like I said in the other thread, go for the camera, it's better in the long run.

[nooneimportant77]

Like I said in the other thread, go for the camera, it's better in the long run.

but maybe not. he's looking at the DVX or XL1, both standard deffinition cameras. pretty soon HD will be too small. I shoot standard deffinition all the time, and i have a small HD camera, but pretty soon i'll have to invest. something thats better in the long run is the adapter because it is what it is. the technology for the adaptor is (as far as i know) at its peak, where as cameras are getting better and better every day.

EDIT: i'd like to note i'm not putting down the DVX or the XL1 at all, they're amazing cameras, probably the best in their class.

[hogihung]

The SGPro is a good adapter as well. It is the one I purchased to use with my HVX200. Granted it is in the price range of the Letus, and Redrock Micro - but think cheaper than those two. Got the flip module as well. The SGPro website I think is shoot35.com. Lots of good info on 35mm Adapters at dvxuser as well.

If you do purchase a 35mm adapter, it is also important to note what kind of lenses you will be using. I have Nikon lenses so they can be used on both my HVX200 and my DSLR.

Ho...

[Ronster]

I think investing int he better camera would be better for me in the long run - just work my way up to the adapter.

But one question comes to mind when I think about the adapter:
The 35mm adapter has its own focus and aperture because of the nature of the adapter (you attach a 35mm lens to the adapter), so when you hook it on to the camera, what do you set the focus and iris on the camera?

[MitchellStafiej]

I was talking to my Filmmaking professor today about 35mm adapters and said that if you're already shooting in HD, even using at HV20, you should get an adapter. It would be a much better investment than a new camera.

I'm listening to him since he's Jesus in the form of professors.

Mitch

[elscottomagnifico]

I think investing int he better camera would be better for me in the long run - just work my way up to the adapter.

But one question comes to mind when I think about the adapter:
The 35mm adapter has its own focus and aperture because of the nature of the adapter (you attach a 35mm lens to the adapter), so when you hook it on to the camera, what do you set the focus and iris on the camera?

"Better in the long run" is the key issue. What do you consider the long run, as in, how long do you plan on using the camera? Within that time do you plan to transition to HD?

HD is quickly replacing SD and, though an HD resolution cam is "backwards compatible" picture wise(can be made into SD for output now), an SD cam will leave you with a maximum of SD footage.

With the adapter, your camera is set up to focus on the screen inside the adapter, the focusing of the shot/scene is done with the adapter/lens. You set up shutter speed, aperture, etc. so that the picture looks correct (You can fine tune how much light comes in the camera still)

[Ronster]

But I don't have an HV20.
That's why I'm asking...

I just would like to know what would be the better investment. So far, you've said the cheaper HD camera would be better.
But aren't there other more professional cameras out there with more manual controls - like the DVX - that also shoot in HD?

I'm just trying to go for the best bang for my buck.

[nooneimportant77]

^ that would be the HVX 200

EDIT: damn i hate when i use the "^" thing and its the top of the page.

[redtail5]

But I don't have an HV20.
That's why I'm asking...

I just would like to know what would be the better investment. So far, you've said the cheaper HD camera would be better.
But aren't there other more professional cameras out there with more manual controls - like the DVX - that also shoot in HD?

I'm just trying to go for the best bang for my buck.


if you want an hd dvx you can get the hvx or save money and get the canon xh-a1 its like the xl2 but in hd and its the same price as an xl2 (cheaper than the hvx!)!!!!!

[redtail5]

^ that would be the HVX 200

EDIT: damn i hate when i use the "^" thing and its the top of the page.

the only thingi like about this cam beter than the a1 is taht it is tapeless

[elscottomagnifico]

But I don't have an HV20.
That's why I'm asking...

I just would like to know what would be the better investment. So far, you've said the cheaper HD camera would be better.
But aren't there other more professional cameras out there with more manual controls - like the DVX - that also shoot in HD?

I'm just trying to go for the best bang for my buck.

You'd have to go for a Canon XHA1 then which will run you a little over $3000. The issue with the DVX and others vs. HV20 with adapter is that, the DVX/others, while excellent SD cams won't give you the ability to advance to HD in the future. Cams are a large investment and at this point, it is best to prepare for the oncoming transition to HD.

Also, your interest in DOF leaves the ability to go HD (which in the case of the HV20 downrezes quite nicely to SD) along with an adapter a large plus.

[MiniMogul27]

What about building an adaptor? You could save alot of money and use it on lenses, production budget, etc.

Agreed. You should go HD. So if you don't get the DOF get the XH A1. It's been reviewed quite favourably.

[Ronster]

Yes, I was thinking building one myself.
Or buying a homemade one.

So you say the Canon XHA1?
Has anyone used this camera?

EDIT:
It says that the Canon XH cameras have fixed 20x zoom lenses rather than the interchangeable lenses like on the XL.
So you can't change the lenses? Doesn't that rule out the DOF adapter?

[elscottomagnifico]

Yes, I was thinking building one myself.
Or buying a homemade one.

So you say the Canon XHA1?
Has anyone used this camera?

EDIT:
It says that the Canon XH cameras have fixed 20x zoom lenses rather than the interchangeable lenses like on the XL.
So you can't change the lenses? Doesn't that rule out the DOF adapter?

The XH is an excellent camera. If you go that route, you won't be disappointed with the cam. The DOF adapter doesn't require interchangeable lenses, but a lens/filter mount on the camera. That is why you can get one for the HV20 even though the HV is a tiny cam with no interchangeable lens ability.

[thepie]

I would go with the XHA1, its an incredible camera. The problem with the HVX is that the tapeless media it uses (P2 cards) are outrageously expensive, and not ideal for low budget films.

[elscottomagnifico]

I would go with the XHA1, its an incredible camera. The problem with the HVX is that the tapeless media it uses (P2 cards) are outrageously expensive, and not ideal for low budget films.

I entirely agree. If you can afford the XHA1, you will be in for a treat. The HVX is good in the idea of tapeless media, but with the cost of the P2 cards, you will end up spending nearly the price of an XHA1 just to have enough recording media (This is not ideal). You will have to wait until you can afford a DOF adapter and extra lenses later on though.

[Fisherking]

It's worth watching out for the release of new HVX models -- usually Panasonic gives away P2 cards in an effort to entice adopters.

[adapteruser]

Do you have a Cinema Lens Adapter like the Redrock m2 or the Letus35? I'm a doc maker and many of my colleagues are using 35mm Cinema Lens Adapters with video-cams for doc and Indy films. Now the old manual lenses that work best for these adapters are hard to find and are getting expensive so we put together a site to give advice and to supply lenses to adapter users. If you are interested in cinema or depth-of-field adapter or know someone who is then they may be interested in looking at the site we put together which is http://lenses35.com

Cheers,

Mike Stevens
PS. Keep an eye open for my upcoming doc "The Wildflowers of Joshu Tree"

[UntoldHorror]

It cost about 500.00 to make a good one.


You can buy this one on EBAY for about 150.00
Ive heard good things about this one...

http://cgi.ebay.com/35mm-Adapter-with-Nikon-Mount-No-Reserve-DOF-Footage_W0QQitemZ170218424240QQihZ007QQcategoryZ30 059QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This is pretty intersting:
http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index.htm

Bryan Roberts

[redtail5]

I would go with the XHA1, its an incredible camera. The problem with the HVX is that the tapeless media it uses (P2 cards) are outrageously expensive, and not ideal for low budget films.

you can always buy a laptop for the price of a p2 card and just record your cams stuff to an external hard drive and save money on tapes!

[Ronster]

So the XHA1 is basically the newer version of the GL2?

[elscottomagnifico]

So the XHA1 is basically the newer version of the GL2?

It's more in the realm of the XL series, sans interchangeable lens.

[elscottomagnifico]

you can always buy a laptop for the price of a p2 card and just record your cams stuff to an external hard drive and save money on tapes!

P2 cards allow footage in a completely different encoding scheme though (at 4:2:2 color) which outdoes current tape based schemes - it doesn't provide much extra in actual implementation on the HVX, but in theory the type of system could. To get comparable encoding you'd have to get an XHG1 which is essentially an A1 that allows output of uncompressed 4:2:2 which you can record onto a computer/hard drive system.

[jawahunter]

Ronster my biggest issue with trying to give you a concise answer is you've yet to mention what you're shooting for as this will greatly depend on the camera you choose. (For the record my opinion is based on the fact I've used every camera I'm about to talk about minus the HV20 although I am buying one this week for certain reasons)

If you plan to make videos for distribution solely on the internet the HV20 with the 35mm adapter is your best route. The reason for this is because it offers you the ability to claim HD video (which by the way pretty much nobody notices online. Yes even on Vimeo) while still getting to use the powerful tool that a 35mm adapter allows. You'll be able to understand certain aspects of camera work that most people in your budget range will not and it will give you plenty of ways to try new shots that you would be limited from doing had you not been able to change lenses.

If your plan is to work on corporate videos (anything from employee training videos to wedding videos) I would recommend either the DVX 100 or XL1 where SD still prevails. Not enough people own HDTVs where they care if these kind of videos are offered in HD and by giving them SD footage you will actually appeal to them more simply because you will be seen as a cheaper alternative even though your stuff will look just as good on their 20" Sears television. Of the two cameras the DVX will actually get you a better image but the size of the XL1 will impress clients more (believe it or not, that's actually important). But when you put the DVX next to the XL1 the DVX will usually outshine it's Canon foe no matter what lens you've put on Canon's system.

If you plan to make higher budget shorts for festival distribution (note: place music videos you hope for TV distribution in this category too) the HVX is the king. Even if you're not a fan of the P2 cards (and I know quite a few people who aren't) the option to use either a laptop or FS-100 hard drive to record your footage is very appealing. The quality on this camera can not be matched at this price point yet (RED Scarlett fans note, the sensor and shutter they're using has me worried though native PL support has me salivating) and it's the only camera that allows you to natively change the progressive frame rate for either slow motion or fast motion video (which to me is a great selling point). Slap on a 35mm adapter on there and you've got one Helluva versatile camera.

If you're wondering why I haven't talked about the Canon XHA1 yet is there's a reason. I am heavily disappointed with this camera. If I had the cash I would much rather invest in a DVX 100b than in this. I don't care if it's HD, Canon really screwed up with the shutter and sensor on this system and after using it for a short recently I was not happy with how it handled blacks at all. I was curious as to how the DP was lighting certain scenes and I found after watching the finished product it was because of the camera's limitations especially when dealing with blacks. Seriously this is the GL2 (another camera I recently used and would not use again) of the HD era. Loved by some, but those that don't like it really don't like it and feel that for the price there are much better alternatives out there. That's not to say that it's a bad camera per say, but for it's price point it really doesn't give you the image quality that other cameras provide. I remember when pondering over the XLH1 and HVX at a camera store the guy working there reminded me that Canon makes great cameras for those that want a fantastic lens with a sub par sensor. He then reminded me that David Cronenberg went with the HVX. I haven't really looked at Canon since for any camera over $1000. Their lenses for sure, but their camera systems just can't cut it against Panasonic's. And if I can add a lens to the Panasonic camera with a 35mm adapter, why go with a weaker camera system when I'm shilling thousands of dollars?

[Ronster]

Wow.
I feel...enlightened.

Let's say...I wanted an all of the above option. I know that's like, woah, but I have abosolutely no idea what I want to use it for. I guess for now, just shorts for film classes, and some occasional contests online.

The only problem I have with something like the HV20, is its lack of manual controls, as stated before. But maybe maybe that's the price I'd have to pay for going a cheaper route...

And what is the difference between the XL1 and XL2?

[elscottomagnifico]

Wow.
I feel...enlightened.

Let's say...I wanted an all of the above option. I know that's like, woah, but I have abosolutely no idea what I want to use it for. I guess for now, just shorts for film classes, and some occasional contests online.

The only problem I have with something like the HV20, is its lack of manual controls, as stated before. But maybe maybe that's the price I'd have to pay for going a cheaper route...

And what is the difference between the XL1 and XL2?

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-XL1S-and-Canon-XL2-compared.htm

Those are the basic differences between the XL1/XL1S and XL2.

Yes, for going the cheaper route you will have to sacrifice manual control and professional looks. The HV20 does have a workaround that provides for control over shutterspeed, aperture and gain at the same time, but it is extra time spent setting up each shot; So you won't be entirely in a point and shoot setup, but it won't be a button per feature professional/simplistic system.

[jawahunter]

At your level (and by level I mean the one in which you ask people on the internet for camera advice) I would recommend the HV20 with lens adapter. As stated in my previous post I'm getting one as a stop gap camera for my new production company that's starting up. I'm going to use it until I can afford the HVX in which case the HV20 will become my BTS and "other camera". I can do this with the foresight of knowing I already have a few clients lined up and other prospects.

Now if you're worried about the manual controls to the HV20 there is a way around it. This article written by Barry Green (http://dvxuser.com/jason/hv20/) (which if you don't know the name learn it as he's considered the expert on consumer/prosumer video) will show you that you can in fact have your cake and eat it too. Plus with the video quality that I've seen from people with the HV20 and the accessibility of colour correction will always give you a great image if you know what you're doing. And that's another reason I recommend the HV20 route, it gives you the chance to experiment at a much lower budget to start and then possibly upgrade once you know exactly what you look for in a camera. (another article you might want to read is this one on pulldown removal (http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2007/07/13/canon-hv20-24p-pulldown/))

Because you asked the difference between the XL1 and the XL2 is the sensors used. The XL2 uses native 16x9 sensors and shoots in 24f which is Canon's backwards 24p solution that isn't quite 24p but is at the same time (ya I don't get it either). I didn't bring it up because when the XL2 had come out I was already on to what I considered better things and had lost my love for Canon's XL system after using the DVX a few times. But since I have not used the XL2 I can't really be subjective. These guys (http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/) however can explain it more to you in their nice comparative.

[Ronster]

By reading that last article, I wanna go with the DVX100B.
That last article you posted really helped me narrow it down.
And, as for the adapter, I'm gonna try THIS (http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index2.htm).

[ctvfilms]

you should buy a panasonic HVX 2000 with Red Rock Micro Set up on that biotch.

[Yansver]

How much better will my footage be with a 35mm adaptor on this camera (I'm saying vs zooming in and manual focusing). Is it worth buying the adaptor?

[nooneimportant77]

A lot of people really like the look they give, most of the time I like it too. However I don't think they are necessary at all. There are other tricks you can do to get that depth of field most of the time, and other ways to get cinematic looks. A 35mm adapter is something I would only buy if for some reason I had the extra money lying around, and really nothing better (lights, tapes, ect.) to spend the money on.

[alybo]

There are other tricks you can do to get that depth of field most of the time, and other ways to get cinematic looks.

The trick that noone mentioned is to zoom allll the way in on your subject. That shrinks your depth of feild. Then you can focus on two different objects.

I agree-- a 35mm adapter is almost as expensive as the camera, and I've found that I can achieve cinematic looks by doing the zoom trick as well as color correction in post.

[Ladri.]

The trick that noone mentioned is to zoom allll the way in on your subject. That shrinks your depth of feild. Then you can focus on two different objects.

I agree-- a 35mm adapter is almost as expensive as the camera, and I've found that I can achieve cinematic looks by doing the zoom trick as well as color correction in post.

Also, if you place the camera close enough to the object you don't need to zoom in and can just focus between the two.

[MitchellStafiej]

I actually used the money I was going to buy a 35mm adapter with and got a GL2, I thought it would be nice to have a prosumer camcorder.

Mitch

[Sminc]

Now I've look around town-- and for some reason, i cant find it! Even on the company websites! Will a Brevis 35mm adapter + flipper work on an HV20 camera? I thought this would be an easy thing to find, guess not.

Thanks!
Sminc

[NaziActionFigure]

Hmm, I don't see why it wouldn't. But do you have your heart set on a brevis? The RNG (http://rng35.com/) is designed for smaller cameras, and is a lot cheaper.

[Sminc]

Hmm, looks like a winner, ill research this-- ive never heard of the RNG before, is it still good quality? Have you used it?

Sminc

[NaziActionFigure]

I have not used it, but the demo videos look pretty promising.

[Westcroft]

The Letus mini is another good match for the HV20. IMO I think the brevis is slightly better than the RNG.

[Sminc]

Yea, thats what it seems like. I Just hate spending so much money for it you know? another thing that will drive me crazy is not having a flip module, even using AE or Premier to flip it back-- wont this reduce quality it i put it on DVD or want to watch it on TV?

Sminc

[NaziActionFigure]

The Letus mini is another good match for the HV20. IMO I think the brevis is slightly better than the RNG.
Yes, it is, but it's also almost twice the price.

[Westcroft]

or go to Indifocus.com and get the Shrigg Rig, which is made specifically for HV20s... it holds the camera upside down and supports the 35mm adapter... thus you don't need a flipper... it also has rails for a follow focus and matte box and mounting options for monitors and other toys...

[MitchellStafiej]

or go to Indifocus.com and get the Shrigg Rig, which is made specifically for HV20s... it holds the camera upside down and supports the 35mm adapter... thus you don't need a flipper... it also has rails for a follow focus and matte box and mounting options for monitors and other toys...
Yeah I just ordered mine, I'm so excited for it to arrive!

Mitch

[Sminc]

or go to Indifocus.com and get the Shrigg Rig, which is made specifically for HV20s... it holds the camera upside down and supports the 35mm adapter... thus you don't need a flipper... it also has rails for a follow focus and matte box and mounting options for monitors and other toys...

Wow! very helpful, never heard of it! thank you! :D

Sminc

EDIT: How did you order yours, mitch? I cant seem to find out how 0_o im Googleing the subject as i type too, some help would rock :D

[Westcroft]

Just e-mail tim, the contact info is on the indifocus site http://indifocus.com/support.htm

Right now however there was some flooding in his area, thus I imagine there might be some delays.

[Sminc]

Just e-mail tim, the contact info is on the indifocus site http://indifocus.com/support.htm

Right now however there was some flooding in his area, thus I imagine there might be some delays.

Oh boy, that stinks... well thanks for the help, if i cant get to him-- i suppose ill rig my own, what an idea too... and so simple.

Sminc

[SethJohnson]

Alright so I'm getting a RedRock adapter, and it says it has a "Nikon Mount", so what does this mean? Can I use any Nikon lens?

I was looking at this guy. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230191355360&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores_IT&refitem=230059020779&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=active_view_item&usedrule1=StoreCatToStoreCat&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget&_trksid=p284.m184&_trkparms=algo%3DDR%26its%3DS%252BI%252BSS%26itu%3 DISS%252BUCI%252BSI%26otn%3D4)

Would that work with what I'm getting?

[ClayOgre]

It's been a while...but I think Nikon was the only manufacturer (with the possible exception of Pentax) that kept their lens mount fairly consistent over the years. You might do a google on the history of the Nikon lens mount and see what you come up with.

I know Canon and Minolta both switched to different lens mounts when they went to autofocus, but I think Nikon kept theirs. Nikon has made some changes over the years, but I seem to remember a friend of mine with an old Nikon F, putting a newer lens on it, it just didn't have the fancy auto aperture functions.

You might just contact RedRock, and point them to the URL of that lens and ask them if it will fit.

[jburas]

Yes, you can use pretty much any Nikon film lens. Nikon DX lenses, made for digital cameras, will not work. Get lenses with an aperture ring or you won't be able to change the aperture, so you won't be able to manipulate the depth of field.

[Fisherking]

My understand is much the same as Clayogre's and jbura's -- Nikon has used a standard mount since forever. I think the Red Rock sells different adapters for different mounts, but getting a Nikon mount will pretty much let you use any Nikon lens.

It's pretty common to see low-budget films set up with an entry-level HD camera, the Red Rock and Nikon lenses. They tend to be cheaper, plentiful and more readily available.

As a heads up, I visited LeMac (http://www.lemac.com.au/) (probably Australia's best camera-store) and asked them about the Red Rock. I was told that they didn't carry it as it didn't meet their quality standards. They were almost offended that I asked - as though it was universally acknowledged that they were crap. They carry the P+S Technik. Make of that what you will. I've not used either, so I have no horse in this race (as they say).

I think the Red Rock cuts off about two stops, so if you invest in it, you're going to have to provide a lot more light than before.

[killkhan]

Hey guys.
I was wondering if anyone on indymogul has a 35 mm adapter that would fit on a canon hv30.
I need it for a short that I will be producing this July.
I would need it for about two weeks and then I can return it.
If anyone can help me that would be amazing and I would offer you credit in the film.
Thanks guys!
-jeff brice

[speekerphone]

I need one too. They're too expensive

[Ronster]

They aren't too expensive if you make them yourself.

I'm sure this has been posted before but...
http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index2.htm

[stefanocasadei]

hello complete stranger you can borrow my 35mm adapter for 2 weeks because i fully trust that you will return it to me

[killkhan]

hello complete stranger you can borrow my 35mm adapter for 2 weeks because i fully trust that you will return it to me

by the way you phrased it, i think you were being sarcastic?

[killkhan]

They aren't too expensive if you make them yourself.

I'm sure this has been posted before but...
http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index2.htm

That's way cheaper than the other DIY ones I've seen.
That's pretty cool.

Thanks man.

[stefanocasadei]

by the way you phrased it, i think you were being sarcastic?

yeah, I don't mean anything against you. It's just, even if you prove yourself to be legit, people most likely(RE:99%) won't lend you their very expensive equipment over the internet. But, you never know I suppose.

[SethJohnson]

Right, I've heard all those things, but I think I will like it. From what I've read they seem to be everyones choice out of Brevis and Letus.

I guess I will find out soon though!
BTW this is what I won- http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230264006279&ssPageName=ADME:B:BOC:US:1123

[killkhan]

yeah, I don't mean anything against you. It's just, even if you prove yourself to be legit, people most likely(RE:99%) won't lend you their very expensive equipment over the internet. But, you never know I suppose.

thats okay. no offense taken.
you just can never tell if people are being sarcastic or not over the internets.

[kenkyusha]

Daniel's Tutorials page can be found here (http://www.jetsetmodels.info/tutorials.htm). This is the style of static adapter that Twoneil builds- they work really well (though obviously vibrating/spinning adapters will mask more imperfections on the lens and focusing screen).

The next step up from there is a vibrating adapter like the JAG20 (retails for about $250).

One other thing that seems to work is moving the camera away from what you are shooting (not a viable option for indoors)- if you can get if far enough away to take advantage of the size of the sensor chip. With a decent mic, that can be used to great effect. HTH.

Be well,
Jigme

[ArmedSaint]

yeah some body told me you can get a 35mm lens for a cannon zr-800 i think he was bsing me because like theres not place to attach a lens im just wondering if its true and if so what should i buy for it

[Videopia]

35mm lens adapters screw into the front of the lens where other lens attachments go, and I don't think the ZR800 has the threads up there.
__________________
“Television has raised writing to a new low.”
-- Samuel Goldwyn
videopia.org (http://videopia.org)

[ArmedSaint]

yeah i wasn't sure about that i didn't think that type of camera could attach a 35mm to it

[MiniMogul27]

You could attach a 35mm adaptor but not a lens. And yes the zr800 has no threads. I plan on gluing a step ring onto mine eventually though.

[AlecHarsh]

SO any camcorder with thread on the front can accept a 35mm adapter or lens? In that case then the Canon Elura 65 would be able to accept one?

[ArmedSaint]

so wait it is possible tho? if can could u make a video to show me how to i mean u problem could even submit it on here


You could attach a 35mm adaptor but not a lens. And yes the zr800 has no threads. I plan on gluing a step ring onto mine eventually though.

[Videopia]

Yes, any camera with filter threads (37mm, 42mm, etc) can accept a 35mm adapter - but please, please: Why do you want to do this? If your answer is "Because I want my video to look like film" STOP! It won't work! You can't just screw this thing to the front of your camera and shoot film. The 35mm lens will double the weight and size of your camcorder and make it 10x more difficult to use. And if you don't do it right, it'll look like crap anyhow and the only video you ever post with it will be your "35mm Demo Test"

__________________
“Television has raised writing to a new low.”
-- Samuel Goldwyn
videopia.org (http://videopia.org/)

[AlecHarsh]

i just wanted to know if it would be an option at some point, I don't plan on getting one for a while.

[jburas]

An adapter will cost more than your camera.

[killkhan]

Daniel's Tutorials page can be found here (http://www.jetsetmodels.info/tutorials.htm). This is the style of static adapter that Twoneil builds- they work really well (though obviously vibrating/spinning adapters will mask more imperfections on the lens and focusing screen).

The next step up from there is a vibrating adapter like the JAG20 (retails for about $250).

One other thing that seems to work is moving the camera away from what you are shooting (not a viable option for indoors)- if you can get if far enough away to take advantage of the size of the sensor chip. With a decent mic, that can be used to great effect. HTH.

Be well,
Jigme

Thanks man. I saw one that was diy, it used a clear cd as a gg and just had a 35 mm lens attached to a piece of plywood on the front. It worked well, just had massive vignetting!

[MiniMogul27]

An adapter will cost more than your camera.
Not necessarily. If you make your own ground glass and find some cheap extension tubes it can be cheap.

[jburas]

Good lenses will cost more than your camera.

[ChaseOfSpades]

I know that it has been asked for before, but i feel that it needs repeating

NONE OF US CAN AFFORD FILM!!!

WE DESIRE 35MM ADAPTERS!!!


Now, eric and the rest of indymogul. there has GOT to be a way that you geniuses can do this. If it's a little bit more expensive than your usual projects...i think most of us will forgive you because you know that we all want one and reading plans online can make a man's head explode.

Maybe a multi-episode venture to break up the price???


pa-pa-pa-pleeeeeease

[DanielImpsonProductions]

Yeah, this would be nice! And tell how to put it on a Canon ZR200 too! ;)

[Videopia]

I think I'm going to create a standard cut-n-paste disclaimer for 35mm Lens adapters:

"WARNING: 35mm lens adapters will not make your video look like film. Neither will shooting in 24p."

There's a long list of reasons Hollywood films look like "films." #1 on that list is "lighting." Manipulation of depth of field is somewhere down around #72 or #73. 24p is down around #7,698,342.

On the other hand, 35mm adapters look really fun and CAN produce some interesting results. And it looks like a fun DIY weekend project, too! So, I'm not knocking them overall - it's a great tool to have at your disposal - it just won't make your video look like film.

This magical device (http://search.ebay.com/krasnogorsk-3_W0QQcrlpZ1872289313Q5f9400QQfnuZ0QQfsooZ2QQfsopZ 32QQkeywordZkrasnogorskQ203QQrprZ8QQxpufuZx), however, WILL give you the "film look" - e-bay has 'em for less than $400, which is cheaper than all commercially available 35mm lens adapters I've seen.
__________________
“I think television has betrayed the meaning of democratic speech, adding visual chaos to the confusion of voices. What role does silence have in all this noise?”
-- Federico Fellini
videopia.org (http://videopia.org)

[nooneimportant77]

"WARNING: 35mm lens adapters will not make your video look like film. Neither will shooting in 24p."

Tru Dat.

First of all, you can get low depth of field without one. Secondly, 35mm adapters will make your video look like.... it was shot with a 35mm adapter. Thirdly, as said above depth of field is nowhere near as important as lighting.

[_ray_biddle_]

This magical device (http://search.ebay.com/krasnogorsk-3_W0QQcrlpZ1872289313Q5f9400QQfnuZ0QQfsooZ2QQfsopZ 32QQkeywordZkrasnogorskQ203QQrprZ8QQxpufuZx), however, WILL give you the "film look" - e-bay has 'em for less than $400, which is cheaper than all commercially available 35mm lens adapters I've seen.
__________________
“I think television has betrayed the meaning of democratic speech, adding visual chaos to the confusion of voices. What role does silence have in all this noise?”
-- Federico Fellini
videopia.org (http://videopia.org)

But who can afford to shoot film and have it processed?

Face it, shooting digital won't look like film. It's how you use the camera. A 35mm adapter, that would be nice but it isn't as important as learning to tell a great story first.

That's a media buzz word created to make filmmakers think something that won't make much difference.

[dizzy]

i got this canon zoom lens and i wanna put it on my camera for manual focus....pweeeeze.

also iso eriks purple indy mogul shirt.

[ChaseOfSpades]

although it does not look like film, it still looks better than not having one.


i love the look of 28 days later which was shot on video with a 35mm adapter. looked great.


and great story telling wont give you everything. i could be great with a camera, amazing director, and use the camera on my phone....but it wont be great....

[Videopia]

Well, the 35mm Lens Adapter may have been one tiny part of why "28 Days Later" looked so good, but I'd argue that the following list is the REAL reason:

***NOTE: this is a short and partial list of reasons copied from IMDB.***

Cinematography by
Anthony Dod Mantle

Film Editing by
Chris Gill

Production Design by
Mark Tildesley

Art Direction by
Mark Digby (supervising art director)
Rod Gorwood (as Rob Gorwood)
Patrick Rolfe

Set Decoration by
Fanny Taylor

Costume Design by
Rachael Fleming

Makeup Department
Nuala Conway .... additional makeup artist
Lisa Crawley .... prosthetic makeup artist
Polly Earnshaw .... additional makeup artist
Andy Garner .... prosthetic makeup artist
Adrian Getley .... prosthetic makeup artist
Barrie Gower .... prosthetic makeup artist
Sian Grigg .... makeup artist
Alan Hedgcock .... prosthetics makeup effects
Kate Hill .... prosthetic makeup artist
Kerry Hormbrey .... makeup trainee: FT2
Deborah Jarvis .... additional makeup artist
Sallie Jaye .... makeup designer
Melissa Lackersteen .... additional makeup artist
Ian Morse .... prosthetic makeup artist
Anthony Parker .... prosthetic makeup artist
Susan Parkinson .... additional makeup artist (as Sue Parkinson)
Justin Pitkethly .... prosthetic makeup artist (as Justin Pitkethley)
John Schoonraad .... prosthetic makeup artist
Robin Schoonraad .... prosthetic makeup artist
Tristan Schoonraad .... prosthetic makeup artist
Dee Sherwood-Wallace .... prosthetic makeup artist
Miho Suzuki .... prosthetic makeup artist
Cliff Wallace .... prosthetics makeup effects
Norma Webb .... additional makeup artist

Second Unit Director or Assistant Director
Vicki Allen .... additional third assistant director
Sara Desmond .... second assistant director
Carlos Fidel .... third assistant director
Richard Styles .... first assistant director
Sallie Anne Hard .... second assistant director: re-shoots (uncredited)
Eliot Mathews .... third assistant director: re-shoots (uncredited)
Alex Oakley .... additional second assistant director (uncredited)
Chris Stoaling .... third assistant director (uncredited)

Art Department
Britta Albert .... prop buyer: Germany
Bruce Barnes .... carpenter
Mark Bewley .... plasterer
John Burgess .... carpenter
Gillian Campbell .... scenic painter
Joe Casey .... plasterer
Jamie Churchouse .... plasterer
Raymond Churchouse .... head plasterer (as Ray Churchouse)
Charlie Cobb .... art department assistant
David Cooper .... carpenter
Andrea Couch .... art department assistant
Dan Crandon .... construction manager
Hannah Crick .... scenic painter
Quentin Davies .... stand-by props
Michelle Day .... art department assistant
Sophie Geliot .... scenic painter
Rod Gorwood .... draughtsman (as Rob Gorwood)
Claire Gould .... art department trainee: FT2
Chris Grace .... carpenter
Ben Green .... carpenter
Mark Guest .... stand-by props
Paul Halter .... carpenter
Martin Kelly .... art department trainee: FT2
Tim Leadley .... stand-by carpenter
Warren Lever .... carpenter
Chris Lightburn-Jones .... assistant construction manager
Charlie Malik .... storeman
Kam-Lan Man .... stand-by art director (as Kam Lan Man)
Jane Matthews .... scenic painter
Toby Neville .... carpenter
Tim Powis .... carpenter
Tim Powis .... foreman
Jody Raynes .... scenic painter
Beth Roberts .... dressing props
Stuart Rushbrook .... carpenter
Denis Schnegg .... art director: Germany (as Dennis Schnegg)
Simon Scullion .... scenic painter
Nick Slater .... stand-by carpenter
Matthew Streatfield .... art department trainee: FT2
Paul Tappin .... plasterer
Marc Telford .... carpenter
Nick Thomas .... prop master
Daniel Vernon .... art department trainee: FT2
Kip Walker .... dressing props
Kellie Waugh .... prop buyer (as Kelly Waugh)
John Weller .... supervising rigger
Matthew Button .... carpenter (uncredited)
Brendan Houghton .... storyboard artist (uncredited)

Special Effects by
Richard Conway .... special effects supervisor
Sam Conway .... special effects technician
Bob Hollow .... special effects supervisor
Andrew Kelly .... special effects technician
Stephen Paton .... special effects technician (as Steve Paton)
Mark White .... special effects technician
Nigel Nixon .... special effects senior technician (uncredited)
Terry Palmer .... special effects technician (uncredited)

Visual Effects by
Peter Bach .... digital effects consultant
Matthew Bristowe .... producer: MPC
Greg Caplan .... visual effects executive producer: Clear
Michael Elson .... head of production: MPC
Richard Etchells .... Filmtel operator
Simon Fallon .... visual effects executive producer: Clear
Symi Fuchs .... visual effects production staff
Steve Garrad .... digital effects producer (as Steve Garrard)
Josh George .... 3D animator
Will Goodchild .... visual effects editor: video tape
Tom Harding .... digital artist
John Harvey .... 3D animator
Jonny Hicks .... digital artist
Simon Hutala .... digital artist (as Simon Huhtala)
Tony Lawrence .... digital effects supervisor
Begoña Lopez .... producer: MPC
Andy Merlino .... digital artist
Hollie Moreton .... visual effects production staff
Ben Murray .... digital artist
Olly Nash .... 3D animator
Matthew Packham .... Filmtel operator
Jim Parsons .... digital artist
Damien Raymond-Barker .... visual effects production staff
Adrian Russell .... 3D animator
Gary Sandbrook .... visual effects editor: video tape
Jean-Clement Soret .... colourist (as Jean Clement Sorret)
Moriah Sparks .... visual effects production staff
Aleks Ugarow .... digital artist
Scott Winter .... visual effects editor: video tape
Marcus Wood .... visual effects editor: video tape
Melissa Agate .... data operator (uncredited)
Simon Cox .... data operator (uncredited)
Paddy Eason .... digital compositor (uncredited)
Rob Hill .... data operator (uncredited)
Sally Spencer .... data operator (uncredited)
John Van Hoey Smith .... data operator (uncredited)
David J. Zimmerman .... tape librarian: CLEAR (uncredited)

Costume and Wardrobe Department
Charlotte Child .... costume assistant
Anne Lavender-Jones .... wardrobe supervisor
Esme Young .... costume maker

[_ray_biddle_]

although it does not look like film, it still looks better than not having one.


i love the look of 28 days later which was shot on video with a 35mm adapter. looked great.


and great story telling wont give you everything. i could be great with a camera, amazing director, and use the camera on my phone....but it wont be great....

I don't have or plan to use one, I think it is a waste of cash personally.

[_ray_biddle_]

although it does not look like film, it still looks better than not having one.


i love the look of 28 days later which was shot on video with a 35mm adapter. looked great.


and great story telling wont give you everything. i could be great with a camera, amazing director, and use the camera on my phone....but it wont be great....

Huh?
Great story vs. Good story Great story is better
Someone talented with a camera phone shooting vs someone with a a gl 2 that has no eye fr shots or an idea how to use it Cellphone will win

Amazing Director with crappy equipment

Vs. Stupid director with great equipment

Amazing director wins...


It is no contest, story and great people will ALWAYS make a better product then throwing money at a project and a bad story and no experience anyday.


I think the right director with a great story could use a scanner to get his shots and he'll make better movie than a bad story with great equipment any day.

I have to hear someone take the other side here, go ahead.

Bad story always equals bad movie.

[nooneimportant77]

and even in the quality realm, where's that video shot on a sidekick ?

[MitchellStafiej]

Well I just bought a 35mm adapter to see what the fuss is about, I'll probably tinker with it for a while and use it in my next project.

If the results are good I'll continue to use it!

Mitch

[ChaseOfSpades]

ha, there is no way that i think 28 days later ONLY looks good because of the adapter...but...all those guys are great...and they still decided to use it


soooo there's got to be something to it.


even if you are a great director, why settle for something when there is a chance to make it look better?

[sonnyfromda02]

and even in the quality realm, where's that video shot on a sidekick ?

This one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ftC5wyLvU

[nooneimportant77]

^ thats the one!

[MooreEnt24]

Tru Dat.

First of all, you can get low depth of field without one. Secondly, 35mm adapters will make your video look like.... it was shot with a 35mm adapter. Thirdly, as said above depth of field is nowhere near as important as lighting.


I totally agree. You shouldn't just rely on a bunch of different toys to try and get your movie to look like film. You need to focus on the basics like lighting, camera positioning, and probably one of the most important things....using a tripod! I've seen a lot of movies that look very poor because of their use of inappropriate hand-held shots. Once you've mastered the basics of cinematography, then you can move on to getting these cool accessories to make them look more professional. But first things first...

[Ronster]

Actually, I dissagree on the tripod point you brought up.
Shooting on tripod makes "your movie look stiff"; it "lacks energy"; it's "lifeless".
I quote Robert Rodriguez for truth.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Lx2XVR4vI)

And in all honesty, he's damn right.

[nooneimportant77]

well yeah, ALWAYS being on a tripod can be boring.

but in any case, playing dress up is fun, but learning to make a good movie is much more important.

[Videopia]

Well, Robert Rodriguez can do what ever he wants, because, well, he's Robert Rodriguez. The rest of us putzes would do well to ALWAYS use a tripod unless there is an intentional/artistic reason not to. Incidental, 99% of the example clips in that video are on a tripod.

I do like his "Speak your reality" philosophy though.

[MooreEnt24]

Yes but if you use handheld the wrong way, it looks like crap.

[Ronster]

Yes but if you use handheld the wrong way, it looks like crap.

What you think looks like crap could look awesome in someone else's eyes.

[MooreEnt24]

Dammit - I'm not saying hand-held shots are bad - its just a lot of movies I've seen, the hand held is done poorly. You need to move with your knees and torso - not your hands.

[Black Dawn Productions]

I don't have or plan to use one, I think it is a waste of cash personally.

How do you plan a getting a greater depth of field with out an adapter for your camera? No one will pay two cents for a movie that has a very shallow depth of field, even if the director was Steven Spielberg. Movies like that are hard to pay attention to and lack any type of professional and artistic appeal, unless your going for a new type of movie.

Just my personal opinion.

[Videopia]

Most crappy amateur handheld videos are shot that way because the shooter was too lazy to get out the tripod (and/or was just fooling around). Intentionally shooting handheld for effect is a choice. Shooting handheld because you are a lazy, sloppy "filmmaker" results in, well, lazy, sloppy, crappy video.

__________________
“Nobody will ever notice that. Filmmaking is not about the tiny details. It's about the big picture.”
-- Ed Wood
videopia.org (http://videopia.org)

[nooneimportant77]

How do you plan a getting a greater depth of field with out an adapter for your camera? No one will pay two cents for a movie that has a very shallow depth of field, even if the director was Steven Spielberg. Movies like that are hard to pay attention to and lack any type of professional and artistic appeal, unless your going for a new type of movie.

Just my personal opinion.

do you have the terms "shallow" and "greater" confused? because its extremely simple to get greater depth of field without an adapter. Thats why they made the adapters. and either way, you can get both shallow and deep depth of field while using an adapter, everyone is just so AMAZED by the low depth of field its all you see.

[bobaandy1]

I hate this. I do. The point of internet forums is to help folks out. So when this guy says "Hey guys, I want an 35mm adapter." everyone says all the reasons he DOESN'T need one and how stupid they are and what a waste of money, and all sorts of other things.

Listen. Shallow DOF may not be the main source of getting the film look. But it's an important part. And I agree, so is lighting, so is proper directing, so is a tripod. But guys, don't get into these hyperboles about how "Low on the list" things are for a film look.
Whoever posted that list of credits doesn't realize something: This isin't professional stuff. We dont have 50 million dollar budgets. We can't afford to have all those people. So we have to do everything we can to get the same look without them.

[Black Dawn Productions]

do you have the terms "shallow" and "greater" confused? because its extremely simple to get greater depth of field without an adapter. Thats why they made the adapters. and either way, you can get both shallow and deep depth of field while using an adapter, everyone is just so AMAZED by the low depth of field its all you see.

lol my bad on mixing those up, but anyway, all I was saying was that the adapter helps a great deal when your trying to use selective focus. You can somewhat get this look by opening your iris and increasing your shutter speed. But otherwise, you're not going to get it to such an exremity.

[nooneimportant77]

^ don't worry about the mix up, and you're totally right, there are other ways of getting this look. Even on a camera like mine, which doesn't have good apeture controls, I can get decently low depth of field just by focusing very carefully.

Here's a shot of a ninja, it was shot just to test out some looks.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2574495312_4a5a5183a9.jpg

no adapter, I can try to find some other examples I have if anyone is really interested, but I think you can just take my word for it.

[Videopia]

Amateurs are making a serious mistake if they think they can produce anything like what Soderbergh or Rodriguez do if only they just buy the right gear. (If I just had a RED, then my movie would win an OSCAR!) Or get the same look that an army of veteran professionals with years of training and an $8,000,000 budget got in "28 Days Later." 35mm lens adapter or not, it's just not gonna happen. And I'm sure you'll agree: a 35mm lens adapter is NOT a magic "make my video look like film" button.

Look, I'm solidly on the side of the little guy; that's why I'm here. We live in a golden age of "filmmaking" with, for the first time ever, quality, free distribution options. This is REALLY exciting. But WE have limited budgets and need to spend our money wisely. If you have $200-300 to spend and you don't have a decent softbox or tripod or microphone, for pete's sake, don't buy 35mm lens adapter.

And STOP obsessing over the freakin' film look and get out there and shoot some VIDEO!


__________________
“Nobody will ever notice that. Filmmaking is not about the tiny details. It's about the big picture.”
-- Ed Wood
videopia.org (http://videopia.org)

[Steve Nelson]

I hate this. I do. The point of internet forums is to help folks out. So when this guy says "Hey guys, I want an 35mm adapter." everyone says all the reasons he DOESN'T need one and how stupid they are and what a waste of money, and all sorts of other things.


Actually, he first mentioned not being able to afford film; hence requiring the need for a 35mm adapter. But the truth is, as others have pointed out, you don't need a 35mm adapter to get the film look. It can be achieved much more inexpensively.

Not that adapters aren't fun and a great tool, but just have a 35mm adapter isn't going to make your movies look like film. All a 35mm adapter does is allow you to use lenses...something that costs even more money.

[Steve Nelson]

How do you plan a getting a greater depth of field with out an adapter for your camera?

You can get a shallow depth of field by zooming in on your subject. Here's an example:

432

I did not use a 35mm adapter anywhere in that video, and I think it looks just as good...if not better...than what others have done with a 35mm on board.

No one will pay two cents for a movie that has a very shallow depth of field, even if the director was Steven Spielberg. Movies like that are hard to pay attention to and lack any type of professional and artistic appeal, unless your going for a new type of movie.

That's not true at all. Very few people go to see a movie because it has a shallow depth of field; most people don't even know what that means. And to think people won't take a movie seriously without it is a blind and unfounded assumption.

[Skycarl]

Chances are that it will be a long long time before I fork out money for a 35mm
adapter. I don't have and can't afford expensive equipment so I try to learn all I can
about what I have and the basics that will give me the best results I can obtain.
That's why I'm here. Not to think about what I don't have, but learn to use what I got.

Stuff like Steve is showing above.

[nooneimportant77]

In all fairness, an adapter can enhanse the look/feel of your video, and it can look nice. If you are aware of what you're doing with it, and it isn't the focus of your movie it can be a nice addition. However you can get low depth of field without one, Steve and I both showed examples.

But, because of this thread, the buzz, and some instructions, about 3 hours ago I thought- screw it, I've got all those parts.

So I'm going to make one, it should cost me less then 50 dollars, because all I really need to buy is a macro lens for my camera.

I'm rather anti 35mm adapter, but I figured I don't REALLY know unless I've REALLY done it, so what the heck, I'll do it. I have a feeling I'll like the effect, but I wont use it exclusively.

[Videopia]

Just to be clear: I'm with you. I'm NOT anti-35mm adapter. I'm NOT anti-24p. I'm NOT anti-flying camera stabilizer mount (just built my first one yesterday). I'm NOT anti-Magic Bullet Film Look. Those are all great technologies, in their place.

I'm also not anti-DOF. I had the pleasure of first hand experience with a Panasonic Varicam, and the FIRST thing you notice about the image - even on a craptastic 7" LCD field monitor - is the absolutely gorgeous selective focus control. ($60k camera, by the way.)

But I AM anti-"IneedthisgadgetandthenmylifewillbecompleteandIwill beafilmmaker."

And I also have my girlfriend's old Pentax SLR sitting next to me right now... hmm... what do I need to thread that onto my 37mm filter diameter Sony SR7...

__________________
“Nobody will ever notice that. Filmmaking is not about the tiny details. It's about the big picture.”
-- Ed Wood
videopia.org (http://videopia.org/)

[Fisherking]

Videopia has a point. A lot of camera-related companies have been selling a lot of bullshit about various gimmocks and gadgets and features you absolutely must have to acquire the 'film-look' (and presumably, to qualify as a 'real' filmmaker). They did it with 24p and they're doing it with 35mm adaptors. These are all great additions to your toolbox, but to harbour under the impression that you need all this crap to qualify as a 'real' filmmaker is ridiculous -- it's just advertising.

[Black Dawn Productions]

^ don't worry about the mix up, and you're totally right, there are other ways of getting this look. Even on a camera like mine, which doesn't have good apeture controls, I can get decently low depth of field just by focusing very carefully.

Here's a shot of a ninja, it was shot just to test out some looks.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2574495312_4a5a5183a9.jpg

no adapter, I can try to find some other examples I have if anyone is really interested, but I think you can just take my word for it.

Yeah. Looks great.

[Black Dawn Productions]

You can get a shallow depth of field by zooming in on your subject. Here's an example:

432

I did not use a 35mm adapter anywhere in that video, and I think it looks just as good...if not better...than what others have done with a 35mm on board.



That's not true at all. Very few people go to see a movie because it has a shallow depth of field; most people don't even know what that means. And to think people won't take a movie seriously without it is a blind and unfounded assumption.

Haha, I agree with the fact that most people don't even know what that means. All I meant by that was that when you make a movie you are telling a story. As the "story teller", you want to be in control of the audiences eye. Any type of focusing, rather than just having everything in focus, helps you better tell your story, in my opinion.

And i know that you can zoom in to get a similar effect but by zooming in you are losing part of your shot, if not the majority.

[ChaseOfSpades]

holy crap, Steve "the freggin Man" Nelson replied to my thread. I crapped myself...

anyways. I am not a ihavetohavethisandthenallmymovieswillbegreatandiwi llbeamillionarekindaguy


I would just like to have one and was hoping that someone could show me the cheapest way to do it. i don't understand why so many people are against the idea of having a cheap one in the first place.

i know a few camera tricks to get a shallow dof, but a lot of times you can't use them, and i would like to have it.

damn...

[BRanger62]

I think I'm going to create a standard cut-n-paste disclaimer for 35mm Lens adapters:

"WARNING: 35mm lens adapters will not make your video look like film. Neither will shooting in 24p."

There's a long list of reasons Hollywood films look like "films." #1 on that list is "lighting." Manipulation of depth of field is somewhere down around #72 or #73. 24p is down around #7,698,342.

On the other hand, 35mm adapters look really fun and CAN produce some interesting results. And it looks like a fun DIY weekend project, too! So, I'm not knocking them overall - it's a great tool to have at your disposal - it just won't make your video look like film.

This magical device (http://search.ebay.com/krasnogorsk-3_W0QQcrlpZ1872289313Q5f9400QQfnuZ0QQfsooZ2QQfsopZ 32QQkeywordZkrasnogorskQ203QQrprZ8QQxpufuZx), however, WILL give you the "film look" - e-bay has 'em for less than $400, which is cheaper than all commercially available 35mm lens adapters I've seen.
__________________
“I think television has betrayed the meaning of democratic speech, adding visual chaos to the confusion of voices. What role does silence have in all this noise?”
-- Federico Fellini
videopia.org (http://videopia.org)

Honestly, many of us do not care of the technical specs of adaptors.

Yes video will never look like film. But many of us would want to have the ability to make our videos look more like Hollywood movies than home videos.

None of us can afford film, nor a film camera, but a DIY 35mm adapter lens for the young filmmaker would certainly get some attention.

ATTENTION FILM SNOBS: Yes, film will never look like video etc. blah blah, lighting, blah, blah, composition.

We all got that, so stop telling us that. But unfortunately not all of us can do that with the limited video cameras we have. I own a Canon ZR500, and its a piece of crap. No matter how much I light it it doesn't look good. Its focus button is not on the lens its in this little knob on the veiwfinder that controls the digital settings. I do not make enough money yet to afford a GL2 or anything of that caliber.

I can borrow one from the local cable access channel and it looks great. But I can't keep it. Which is why we ask for a solution.

Frankly, leave me a camera with a 24p setting and I'll be fine. But not many consumer cameras do that. Especially not mine, and if there is cheap solution out there to make our mediocre cameras look better, then Erik Beck is the man to find it.