Hey Andy, I apologize for the "too bad" statement. I’m actually sorry that you are not happy with the Brevis.
But I still don’t see an aerial image around objects in the bokeh or around lights. Yes, there is a haze around the highlights as I go F4 to F1.4, but really, not an aerial image as I have seen before.
Do you actually get a deep depth of field at F4? With my Canon F1.4, the difference in DOF between F1.4 and F4 (the diaphragm is closing between these positions) is minimal. The DOF really starts to deepen after that. The short clip I posted above shows the DOF I got at F4. That was in cloudy conditions.
Cheers, (and peace)
Inital Thoughts?
by Andy Gordon on Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:18 am
No worries Francois.
No it doesn't change the DOF much between F1.4 and F4, but as you open the aperture you can see the ghost of the circular disc of light that would be solid if it diffused more. The DOF does seem deeper than my POC20 adapter. The whole bokeh looks hazy at f1.4 to me. It looks better stopped down to f4 or f5.6. Problem is that makes the grain worse and it starts to flicker at 1/100 shutter and f4. Shame if higher than 1/50 shutter is not an option, I like the look and it's handy when taking out shake or doing slomo.
The dust sheilds should be removable. There's some stuff trapped inside my adapter, maybe it was dislodged during shipping, but with the dust shields glued in place there's not much I can do apart from trying to shake it off if it lands on the screen, which it did.
There's also a bit of CA and BD in the image. Oh well.
Cheers
Andy
No it doesn't change the DOF much between F1.4 and F4, but as you open the aperture you can see the ghost of the circular disc of light that would be solid if it diffused more. The DOF does seem deeper than my POC20 adapter. The whole bokeh looks hazy at f1.4 to me. It looks better stopped down to f4 or f5.6. Problem is that makes the grain worse and it starts to flicker at 1/100 shutter and f4. Shame if higher than 1/50 shutter is not an option, I like the look and it's handy when taking out shake or doing slomo.
The dust sheilds should be removable. There's some stuff trapped inside my adapter, maybe it was dislodged during shipping, but with the dust shields glued in place there's not much I can do apart from trying to shake it off if it lands on the screen, which it did.
There's also a bit of CA and BD in the image. Oh well.
Cheers
Andy
Last edited by Andy Gordon on Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Andy Gordon
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:13 pm
- Location: Perth WA
by Andy Gordon on Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:45 am
Check out this comparison, the diffuser on the Brevis makes the DOF you get from your lens MUCH deeper than it should be. This is not good...
Nikon 50mm f1.4:
Brevis f1.4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7474
POC20 f1.4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7475
Brevis f4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7476
POC20 f4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7477
Sorry but I just don't think the diffuser is up to the job yet Dennis. People who buy the final Brevis and who know what to look for in the image are not going to be happy with the short comings. If you want this to be a "professional" solution it needs more diffusion.
Nikon 50mm f1.4:
Brevis f1.4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7474
POC20 f1.4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7475
Brevis f4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7476
POC20 f4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7477
Sorry but I just don't think the diffuser is up to the job yet Dennis. People who buy the final Brevis and who know what to look for in the image are not going to be happy with the short comings. If you want this to be a "professional" solution it needs more diffusion.
- Andy Gordon
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:13 pm
- Location: Perth WA
by Aram Bauman on Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:41 am
Yeah, i just recieved a box so i guess its the charger.
So about bokeh, would using a real film lense like a cooke give this? It would seem that might be a factor and until someone tests one can we be sure its the adapter?
So about bokeh, would using a real film lense like a cooke give this? It would seem that might be a factor and until someone tests one can we be sure its the adapter?
- Aram Bauman
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:40 am
by Andy Gordon on Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:03 am
No the lens won't make a difference. Not the difference I'm talking about. If you took a picture with an SLR camera on 35mm film and developed it, it would look like the POC20 samples I've posted. The properties of the Brevis diffuser are not giving the image the properties it should have for a given lens.
The difference between what the image should look like (the POC20 samples I'v posted) and what the Brevis or a Beattie or an Optosigma or a Nikon D screen gives you are screamingly obvious to me. I'm really starting to feel like no one else can see it, except maybe DJ
The difference between what the image should look like (the POC20 samples I'v posted) and what the Brevis or a Beattie or an Optosigma or a Nikon D screen gives you are screamingly obvious to me. I'm really starting to feel like no one else can see it, except maybe DJ
- Andy Gordon
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:13 pm
- Location: Perth WA
by Mathieu Bergeron on Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:32 am
Sad I can't take part of the testing for now...
I just think Dennis should have waited a bit before leaving. I guess he had good reasons.
From the short amount of time I had the device, the first thing that struck me was those screws sticking out at the back not making it possible to screw on properly the 72mm step ring. Then, less important, I thought all wires and electronics inside should have been hidden.
As for the bokeh, the difference is quite visible but don't seem to care for how it renders the highlights. The deepness comparison by Andy is very interesting. I like the POC20 better.
As for it's shape... It's much better and lighter than the M2 I owned. I didn't like the M2 for many reasons (ghosting, focus, weight). This device was meant to solve a few issues but you guys seem to have problems with it!
Hope this gets fixed soon, I was hoping to use it for a shoot in mid-May...
I just think Dennis should have waited a bit before leaving. I guess he had good reasons.
From the short amount of time I had the device, the first thing that struck me was those screws sticking out at the back not making it possible to screw on properly the 72mm step ring. Then, less important, I thought all wires and electronics inside should have been hidden.
As for the bokeh, the difference is quite visible but don't seem to care for how it renders the highlights. The deepness comparison by Andy is very interesting. I like the POC20 better.
As for it's shape... It's much better and lighter than the M2 I owned. I didn't like the M2 for many reasons (ghosting, focus, weight). This device was meant to solve a few issues but you guys seem to have problems with it!
Hope this gets fixed soon, I was hoping to use it for a shoot in mid-May...
- Mathieu Bergeron
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:12 am
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
by Rafael Lopes on Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:51 pm
Mathieu, it would be very interesting to get your feedback, since you owned a M2. To be honest when Redrock first started I didn't like their footage but today I see a lot of amazing footage there (specialy from the FX1/Z1). A side by side comparison from you would be very nice. What always held me from buying the M2 was the mobility factor. I HAVE to be able to shoot hand held.
Rafael Lopes
www.p3mundo.com
www.p3mundo.com
-
Rafael Lopes - Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:06 am
- Location: Barcelona
by Dennis Wood on Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:27 pm
Hey Guys, checked in on an internet cafe here and a few comments. First of all...sorry Andy that you don't like the bokeh. It's such a subjective issue, that it's likely impossible to please everyone. For me, after looking at a lot of footage, it's something that I think we (as the adapter consumer's) look at very closely, but I'm not sure what the perfect answer is...or how much the end user sees this. Better bokeh seems to come at a much higher light loss factor. I've also found that using fast lenses wide open makes some bokeh effects impossible...but I know that is not what Andy is referring to.
The GG is not necessarily going to line up perfectly with your frame...one of the reasons it's 2mm larger on both axis than 24x36...this gives a bit of flexibility with alignment on the x and y axis. They should all be very close. They should be dead on with respect to z axis alignment. (edge to edge fore/aft alighnment)
The adapter should be mounting up very solid, if not, make sure the screws are tightened as they should be. I may make a design change if this is a universal problem. I had a very solid mount on all cam's I tested, so if your adapter isn't mounting up correctly, post a pic or two so I can check it out.
If you can't frame up with a +10 on a DVX, something is definitely not right. I was using a +6 with the DVX100.
For those of you with US addresses, the charger should have come seperately by Tuesday or Wednesday. Aram, if it didn't just email me and I'll look it up.
I'll try and answer as many emails as I can in the next hour or so, and return back to this cafe for more as soon as I can....
The GG is not necessarily going to line up perfectly with your frame...one of the reasons it's 2mm larger on both axis than 24x36...this gives a bit of flexibility with alignment on the x and y axis. They should all be very close. They should be dead on with respect to z axis alignment. (edge to edge fore/aft alighnment)
The adapter should be mounting up very solid, if not, make sure the screws are tightened as they should be. I may make a design change if this is a universal problem. I had a very solid mount on all cam's I tested, so if your adapter isn't mounting up correctly, post a pic or two so I can check it out.
If you can't frame up with a +10 on a DVX, something is definitely not right. I was using a +6 with the DVX100.
For those of you with US addresses, the charger should have come seperately by Tuesday or Wednesday. Aram, if it didn't just email me and I'll look it up.
I'll try and answer as many emails as I can in the next hour or so, and return back to this cafe for more as soon as I can....
- Dennis Wood
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2944
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:31 pm
- Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
by Andy Gordon on Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:13 pm
Sure whether you like hazy bokeh is a subjective thing, I was almost ready to live with the Brevis results till I noticed the lack of shallow DOF.
The DOF I should get from my 50mm f1.4 lens is not a subjective matter. What correct diffusion looks like is not a subjective matter. I bought the Brevis to give me shallow depth of field, not a somewhat shallower depth of field. I could have zoomed on the camcorder to get that.
Yes there's a number of compromises and trade offs to be made in any 35mm adapter but I know how much better the results could be and I think you threw out the baby with the bathwater.
The annoying thing for me is I feel you misled me when you said there was no haze on out of focus lights when clearly there is.
The DOF I should get from my 50mm f1.4 lens is not a subjective matter. What correct diffusion looks like is not a subjective matter. I bought the Brevis to give me shallow depth of field, not a somewhat shallower depth of field. I could have zoomed on the camcorder to get that.
Yes there's a number of compromises and trade offs to be made in any 35mm adapter but I know how much better the results could be and I think you threw out the baby with the bathwater.
The annoying thing for me is I feel you misled me when you said there was no haze on out of focus lights when clearly there is.
- Andy Gordon
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:13 pm
- Location: Perth WA
by Joshua Nitschke on Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:33 pm
Andy Gordon wrote:Check out this comparison, the diffuser on the Brevis makes the DOF you get from your lens MUCH deeper than it should be. This is not good...
Nikon 50mm f1.4:
Brevis f1.4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7474
POC20 f1.4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7475
Brevis f4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7476
POC20 f4
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=7477
Sorry but I just don't think the diffuser is up to the job yet Dennis. People who buy the final Brevis and who know what to look for in the image are not going to be happy with the short comings. If you want this to be a "professional" solution it needs more diffusion.
That example scares me....
- Joshua Nitschke
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:12 pm
by Andy Gordon on Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:00 pm
Welcome to my world! While testing the Brevis over the last day or so I kept thinking this DOF should be shallower.
Things is if you don't have an adapter to compare against, you don't know what you're missing.
At the moment the best solution I can see is trying to get an oscillating POC20 to work. I wonder if Dennis tried it? The grain is bigger so it needs to oscillate at a certain speed and amplitude, that's what I haven't managed with my own adapter. You can still see the moving grain. You can also see moving grain on the Brevis BTW.
The light loss with the POC20 plus condensor is only marginally higher than the Brevis. Maybe you could stick a fresnel on the POC? With the design of the Brevis you might struggle to get condensors in there.
Another option might be to increase the diffusion on the Brevis by adding a POC10 to the front of the diffuser. If the diffusion surface is at the front the two diffusion surfaces would be together, and if the oscillation is enough for the POC10 grain it might work. I have some POC10 and I am not sure how much longer I will be able to resist the temptation to crack open the Brevis and try this out.
And another option might be adding something like an Optosigma or even an opaque piece of plastic bag to it to increase the diffusion. With a little more work the Brevis could produce the goods...
While testing the Brevis over the last day or so I kept thinking this DOF should be shallower.
Things is if you don't have an adapter to compare against, you don't know what you're missing.
At the moment the best solution I can see is trying to get an oscillating POC20 to work. I wonder if Dennis tried it? The grain is bigger so it needs to oscillate at a certain speed and amplitude, that's what I haven't managed with my own adapter. You can still see the moving grain. You can also see moving grain on the Brevis BTW.
The light loss with the POC20 plus condensor is only marginally higher than the Brevis. Maybe you could stick a fresnel on the POC? With the design of the Brevis you might struggle to get condensors in there.
Another option might be to increase the diffusion on the Brevis by adding a POC10 to the front of the diffuser. If the diffusion surface is at the front the two diffusion surfaces would be together, and if the oscillation is enough for the POC10 grain it might work. I have some POC10 and I am not sure how much longer I will be able to resist the temptation to crack open the Brevis and try this out.
And another option might be adding something like an Optosigma or even an opaque piece of plastic bag to it to increase the diffusion. With a little more work the Brevis could produce the goods...
- Andy Gordon
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:13 pm
- Location: Perth WA
by Joshua Nitschke on Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:44 am
Well, I'm gonna wait to see more test footage....
But I have a strong feeling I'm gonna be getting another adapter (M2 probably).
But I have a strong feeling I'm gonna be getting another adapter (M2 probably).
- Joshua Nitschke
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:12 pm
by Francois Poitras on Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:37 am
Andy,
I’ve tried that already with the POC20, POC10 and POC5. While it increased the diffusion and gave excellent bokeh with the POC20, grain was still visible and the light loss just added. I did not measure it, but it was at least one stop more. Like you, I am not able to move the POC20 fast enough to make the grain disappear, and I doubt this is feasible with this material. I did not push it further, as I was and am happy with the diffuser as it is.
But, what you suggest may be an option with another material, if you want to increase diffusion. But that will undoubtedly come with more light loss. I’d bet a dollar or two Dennis will look into that...
Are you trying to find solutions? Now you’re talking.
Seriously, I understand you feel disappointed, but I highly doubt Dennis intentionally tried to mislead you into buying the Brevis. He is not stupid and would not sell a product that he would think people are unhappy with. He worked his ass off for the last month to produce this adapter and specifically showed hi-rez footage that was representative and apparently good enough for people to be interested in. Not only that, he did invest a lot of cash. So my guess is he wants this to work...
Cheers
I’ve tried that already with the POC20, POC10 and POC5. While it increased the diffusion and gave excellent bokeh with the POC20, grain was still visible and the light loss just added. I did not measure it, but it was at least one stop more. Like you, I am not able to move the POC20 fast enough to make the grain disappear, and I doubt this is feasible with this material. I did not push it further, as I was and am happy with the diffuser as it is.
But, what you suggest may be an option with another material, if you want to increase diffusion. But that will undoubtedly come with more light loss. I’d bet a dollar or two Dennis will look into that...
Are you trying to find solutions?
Now you’re talking.
Seriously, I understand you feel disappointed, but I highly doubt Dennis intentionally tried to mislead you into buying the Brevis. He is not stupid and would not sell a product that he would think people are unhappy with. He worked his ass off for the last month to produce this adapter and specifically showed hi-rez footage that was representative and apparently good enough for people to be interested in. Not only that, he did invest a lot of cash. So my guess is he wants this to work...
Cheers
Francois
- Francois Poitras
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:42 am
- Location: Quebec, Canada
by Andy Gordon on Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:30 am
Well I think I'm over my initial disappointment and yes I'm looking for solutions. I know Dennis has put in a huge investment in terms of time, effort and money already, but it may only be the tip of the iceberg?
I think it will be possible to make the POC20 move enough. I've nearly got my own adapter working, I just can't get it to oscillate consistently in a circle. The amount of shallow DOF the Brevis diffuser sacrificed is very significant, I'm about to post another comparison.
When you consider that you have to stop down to f4 on the Brevis to remove the haze, the light loss equals out. In my latest test the camcorder chose 3db gain for Brevis at f4 and the same for my own adapter at f2. So going to POC20 doesn't mean more light loss IMO.
When Dennis said there was no haze he probably meant stopped down, it's really obvious with the lens open. I hope Dennis will take opinions on board and try to find solutions, rather than put the Brevis out as it stands. Look at the delays the G35 has had, they're really trying to get it right, Dennis has had an amazingly fast turnaround from development to product, only a few months. Probably too fast. However his comment before about not really needing Beta testers makes me think he'll probably put it out anyway.
If the diffuser is custom made can't Dennis spec out one with more diffusion?
I think it will be possible to make the POC20 move enough. I've nearly got my own adapter working, I just can't get it to oscillate consistently in a circle. The amount of shallow DOF the Brevis diffuser sacrificed is very significant, I'm about to post another comparison.
When you consider that you have to stop down to f4 on the Brevis to remove the haze, the light loss equals out. In my latest test the camcorder chose 3db gain for Brevis at f4 and the same for my own adapter at f2. So going to POC20 doesn't mean more light loss IMO.
When Dennis said there was no haze he probably meant stopped down, it's really obvious with the lens open. I hope Dennis will take opinions on board and try to find solutions, rather than put the Brevis out as it stands. Look at the delays the G35 has had, they're really trying to get it right, Dennis has had an amazingly fast turnaround from development to product, only a few months. Probably too fast. However his comment before about not really needing Beta testers makes me think he'll probably put it out anyway.
If the diffuser is custom made can't Dennis spec out one with more diffusion?
- Andy Gordon
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:13 pm
- Location: Perth WA
by Brandon Rice on Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:19 pm
Ok, I'm liking how my Brevis footage is looking. I now see I NEED rails. I also need someone to help me out with configuring it for the DVX100. The +6 macro is still funky.
- Brandon Rice
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:40 pm
by Joshua Nitschke on Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:49 pm
Brandon Rice wrote:Ok, I'm liking how my Brevis footage is looking. I now see I NEED rails. I also need someone to help me out with configuring it for the DVX100. The +6 macro is still funky.
Let's see some footage.
- Joshua Nitschke
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:12 pm
by Brandon Rice on Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:55 pm
Well, I need to get my adapter working... I haven't even adjusted it correctly yet,
- Brandon Rice
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:40 pm
Great job Denis, but...
by DJ Lewis on Tue May 02, 2006 5:31 pm
1. Is there a (good) reason the diffuser isn't centered?
2. Also, is the power light covered on the inside of everyone's adapter but mine? Unless theres a lot of light, I can see the light reflecting in the footage... making it useless. (not happy about this)
3. I'm not sure +6 is strong enough, especially for people shooting 16:9... and if you can't guarutee edge to edge sharpness with your achromats the footage will look like something out of the movie "Predator".
http://www.geocities.com/djlewis2000/predator.htm
4. there is a smudge and dust inside of my adapter! Can't see when adapter on though, but still THERE IS A SMUDGE AND DUST INSIDE!
http://www.geocities.com/djlewis2000/dirt1.jpg
5. We need more thread in the back of the adapter and....
6. As stated by andy, if the screws aren't in straight or tight, the adapter is isn't straight. The muonting flange is a great idea, but there maybe another way to accomplish it. this however is the at the bottom of the list of things that need to be addressed.
7. A little more diffusion would be nice. The image is already very sharp, and I'm not getting anywhere near as grainy or hazy pictures as I've seen with other units.
Since its closed, what about vaseline, nivea cream, or a very thin layer of wax... or you and andy have mentioned adding a poc....
Its very light, sturdy, and quiet and, as is, its pleasing if you can get past the quirks. fix these issues and you will have a winner.
Some quick vids:
*Not Pubilc - Not Pubilc - Not Pubilc*
http://www.savefile.com/projects/567122
2. Also, is the power light covered on the inside of everyone's adapter but mine? Unless theres a lot of light, I can see the light reflecting in the footage... making it useless. (not happy about this)
3. I'm not sure +6 is strong enough, especially for people shooting 16:9... and if you can't guarutee edge to edge sharpness with your achromats the footage will look like something out of the movie "Predator".
http://www.geocities.com/djlewis2000/predator.htm
4. there is a smudge and dust inside of my adapter! Can't see when adapter on though, but still THERE IS A SMUDGE AND DUST INSIDE!
http://www.geocities.com/djlewis2000/dirt1.jpg
5. We need more thread in the back of the adapter and....
6. As stated by andy, if the screws aren't in straight or tight, the adapter is isn't straight. The muonting flange is a great idea, but there maybe another way to accomplish it. this however is the at the bottom of the list of things that need to be addressed.
7. A little more diffusion would be nice. The image is already very sharp, and I'm not getting anywhere near as grainy or hazy pictures as I've seen with other units.
Since its closed, what about vaseline, nivea cream, or a very thin layer of wax... or you and andy have mentioned adding a poc....
Its very light, sturdy, and quiet and, as is, its pleasing if you can get past the quirks. fix these issues and you will have a winner.
Some quick vids:
*Not Pubilc - Not Pubilc - Not Pubilc*
http://www.savefile.com/projects/567122
Last edited by DJ Lewis on Wed May 03, 2006 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- DJ Lewis
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:08 am
59 posts • Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests