Red vs 2/3" chip with 35mm lens adapter

[Lawrence Daufenbach]

I am sure this question has been answered, but I am getting ready to shoot a short film and am looking into cameras within budget.

What is going to be the main visual difference between using the RED with a standard Zeiss package vs. using a 2/3" camera such as the Panasonic HPX500 with a 35mm lens adapter and Zeiss Ultra or Master Prime package.

Any visual examples available?

 

[Thomas Koch]

While I don't have any examples, i have used 35mm adapters extensively, and I personally love the look, but can't stand all of the technical restrictions they raise. Most notably, the drop in resolution to the camera, and the light loss. It was during a M2 shoot that I decided once and for all to put down my RED one deposit.

 

[Alexis Vanier]

I'm not sure I've seen any threads really addressing this question.

I have extensive experience as well with the P+S Pro-35 as well as the Letus and Redrock M2 and Thomas is absolutely right. The look is there, but the light loss often pushed me into underexposure with cameras that didn't forgive it. It's a very tough game to play. Additionnally, it always ends up being a pretty unergonomic rig. Shoulder work is always a pain in the ass with DoF converters.

Financially I also find it's often not a smart to go DoF converter move since the RED is on the market. Here in Montreal the competition is pretty fierce and renting a fully loaded RED with a set of Super Speeds MKIII costs pretty much the same (if not less) as renting the HPX with a P+S Pro-35 and the same lenses.

Finally, you also have to think about how the light loss will affect your lighting package and it's cost. It can definitely get you around the corner if you don't think about it.

Oh, and you have the added benefit that the RED's image is right side up...

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

I would rather use a 5DMKII than a 35mm adapter on a 2/3" video camera, FWIW I will shoot with 5 this weekend, rather cheaper to rent than just one HVX 200 & Redrock adapter.

Stephen

 

[Eki Halkka]

Most notably, the drop in resolution to the camera, and the light loss.

HPX500 is a very soft camera, even with regular lenses - with a 35mm adapter, i'd guess the resolution would be enough for SD, not much more.

Light loss may or may not be an issue - for daylight exteriors it's a non-issue, but if the light is a scarce resource, it may be a deal breaker...

 

[Josh Negrin]

the 5D Mark II is an excellent video camera. If you can, put it on rails, use primes, and in post bring the frame rate to 24fps. The video of the 5d Mark II far exceeds any prosumer camera on the market, even with it's drawbacks (rolling shutter being probably the biggest one, but I find this to be less of an issue when I'm not using a zoom lens. I have no idea why this is?) The scarlet will blow the 5D away, but for now this is your best alternative to 2/3" with a redrock, and it's cheaper.

5d mark II and three cheap primes (canon 28mm 50mm and 85mm) will run you $3200 total. Trust me, this thing has been in my shopping cart a few times, just can't pull the trigger. Luckily my buddy owns one!

 

[Eki Halkka]

the 5D Mark II is an excellent video camera.

I beg to differ... it's a great still camera with an add-on video feature that has it's pluses and minuses.

If you can, put it on rails, use primes, and in post bring the frame rate to 24fps.

There's no way to make 30p into 24p or 25p without artifacts, unless you slow down the footage. Frame rate conversion may look decent on some shots, but plain awful on others.

The video of the 5d Mark II far exceeds any prosumer camera on the market, even with it's drawbacks (rolling shutter being probably the biggest one

The lack of manual control is the biggest problem in my opinion, followed by moiré and aliasing problems caused by line-skipping in the sensor. The rolling shutter i could live with...

Some shots will look nice, some will suck big time. Saying the video quality exceeds prosumer video cameras is far from truth.

 

[Josh Negrin]

Eki, I've shot on both the RED One and the 5D Mark II and I own a sony fx1. While we appreciate your opinions, are they based on what you've seen on Vimeo? Or have you shot with this camera?

Here's what I've shot with the 5d Mark II (some point and shoot shots in there too)
http://vimeo.com/3051140

make sure to dl the quicktime. Look at the water and the depth of field on the blonde dude with the glasses. The hvx-200 only dreams about getting shots like that. Please show me the aliasing that I seem to be missing?

P.S. you can make any great camera look bad, i.e. Michael Mann and Miami Vice. Hopefully, it's a stylistic choice like Michael Mann and not because of operator error. Also, the flip side of that is Victor Salva (director of Jeepers Creepers), he showed us a short film he shot with a hi-8mm camera that looked amazing and that's what landed him jeepers creepers. I can only imagine a studio exec saying "well I don't know about your film, some of the shots are aliasing." Hahahaha

 

[Kyle Presley]

5D MARK II latitude sucks compared to just about any camera out there. I'd take latitude over resolution any day.

 

[Josh Negrin]

5D MARK II latitude sucks compared to just about any camera out there. I'd take latitude over resolution any day.

I agree with the second part of that. Assuming we're all camera tech savvy here, could you be more specific with that first part Kyle? I disagree because I find the dynamic range of the 5d Mark II much better than the f900, and I think everyone would agree the f900 is a better camera than the XLH1 or the HVX or the Sony EX1.

 

[Eki Halkka]

Eki, I've shot on both the RED One and the 5D Mark II and I own a sony fx1. While we appreciate your opinions, are they based on what you've seen on Vimeo? Or have you shot with this camera?

I haven't shot with MKII. You could say my opinions are based on vimeo etc. plus some original MKII clips i've downloaded. But that's only half of it - my main concerns are based simply on the known technical comporomises made with the camera.

At worst, the moire artifacts look absolutely horrendous, very distracting to Joe Average, not just camera enthusiasts. I also do not know of any soft- or hardware that would remedy the frame rate conversion problems. Frame blending will cause ghosting, motion-aware algorithms will cause extremely weird artifacts on some shots.

"well I don't know about your film, some of the shots are aliasing."

Trust me, it can get ugly ;-)

find the dynamic range of the 5d Mark II much better than the f900.

It would be interesting to see some MKII footage with a custom low contrast color profile - it might actually have decent usable dynamic range with the current QT decoder (the old QT version badly crushed blacks and whites on playback, which explains most of the ugly, overly contrasty videos seen on the net).

Haven't come across such low-con footage yet, but not saying it couldn't exist.

 

[Eki Halkka]

Here's one version of the aliasing i'm talking about - i've seen even worse...

http://vimeo.com/2738955

 

[Josh Negrin]

ugh, that is some nasty aliasing. I still plan on shooting a short on the Mark II. Hopefully, for any filmmaker that wants to shoot on this camera or any other camera out there, the story would be engrossing enough to avoid the aliasing (or insert any other camera problem here) from taking people out of the movie. I know we all want our movies to be as perfect as they can be, though. I would still take this camera over anything but the RED and Film, especially given the limitations other hd cameras have in low light.

Also, you bring up a great point about the blacks being crushed in playback on QT. When I converted the footage in FCP to apple pro res, the QT playback looked much better. I have no idea why, because this doesn't make sense technically. But whatev.

 

[James Press]

Back on track...what hasn't been mentioned yet is the depth/latitude of the R3D files compared to video files. You'll have enormous room in post to get stunning color.

 

[David Wyatt]

The light loss with 35mm adaptors is a serious pain in the arse - depending on the conditions you shoot in, you may need a bigger lighting package (instead take the amount you'll have to spend on a bigger lighting package and spend it on the Red, rated at a more practical 320 or 500 ASA). Plus you'll also have the benefit of being able to grade with RAW files (or at least chunky DPX files), as opposed to crappier codecs on lesser cameras. It also depends a bit on your finishing format - if it's for the big screen at any stage then Red's resolution will be a huge advantage compared to the other cameras you're considering. Choose Red - you won't be disappointed!

 

[doondoon]

the 5D Mark II is an excellent video camera. If you can, put it on rails, use primes, and in post bring the frame rate to 24fps. The video of the 5d Mark II far exceeds any prosumer camera on the market, even with it's drawbacks (rolling shutter being probably the biggest one ,

You don't find the fact that you have almost no control over the exposure a drawback? I about slammed that fu++ing camera into a concrete wall the other day. :tongue: Footage looks nice though... just don't EVER try and use it on a "real" production. just my opinion.

 

[Josh Negrin]

haha doondoon, right on man! We were setting up a shot, looked at the lcd, and said "well we can't change anything, ahh f*!k it." Real production... no. Short film with almost no budget to look like an expensive movie.. yes.

 

[Charles Angus]

Use the Master Primes on the RED and you'll be able to get some great, sharp images, suitable for the big screen.

Use the Master Primes on an adapter rig, and you'll get images which will look great on TV and less and less good as it blown up.

 

[Michael Morlan]

In summary from the above and my own experience:

DoF adapters have their own appealing visual aesthetic - very soft with slight vignetting.

DoF adapters suffer light loss. When you attach that to a prosumer camera which ranges from 125ISO to 250ISO, you are shooting with as low as 50ISO. That requires two to four times the light and/or a lower f-stop than desired (and the resulting focus pulling challenges) to achieve exposure.

DoF adapters make an already front-heavy, pro-sumer camera practically unususable for handheld. I've operated with the P+S adapter and it is murder. A DP for whom I operated B camera had a pneumatic rod socketed into a rod bracket and waist belt to hold up the front of the rig. I wasn't so fortunate.

IMHO, DoF adapters are a terrible kludge to achieve 35mm DoF but better than a 1/3" chip. (That being said, I purposely chose a GY-HD100 for a western short project for it's deep DoF character to capture the wide exterior vistas.)

MDSLR cameras are another half-way solution - not quite there for motion video. They deliver 35mm aesthetics with some other undesired artifacts including heavy rolling shutter and limited frame rate options.

MDSLR cameras, like pro-sumer cameras are difficult for hand held work since they are front heavy - especially after adding rods, FF, matte box.

As a mid-level digital cinema camera, RED One is purpose designed to the task of s35 digital motion picture acquisition and, while expensive compared to pro-sumer or MDSLR, aquires at 320ISO with a mildly soft look all its own (due to the choice of OLPF) and acceptable latitude of 8-9 stops.

High-end digital cameras like the Sony F35 deliver a sharper image and 12-stop latitude.

Film emulsions deliver varying levels of latitude, detail, and colorimetry. In general, they have detail similar to or exceeding RED One and 13 stops of latitude.