35mm Enormous Apparatus / EASY AS HELL!?!?! [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Shaw

01-18-2005, 10:48 AM

Yep those are similar to the plans I was discussing with DEATHTOPRINT over PM. I have modified the design though for my own purposes as I don't like the way he has things set up exactly. Basically I just stole the idea of using the optics tube :D

Here are my plans:

http://www.weet.us/adapter.gif

Necessary Parts:

52mm lens tube
http://www.thorlabs.com/ProductDetail.cfm?&DID=6&ObjectGroup_ID=213&Produc t_ID=1481

Retaining ring (holds optics in the tube)
http://www.thorlabs.com/ProductDetail.cfm?&DID=6&ObjectGroup_ID=848&Produc t_ID=1483

+10 Close up lens (achromat)
http://www.adorama.com/HYCU1055.html?searchinfo=hoya%2055mm%20%2010&item_ no=1

72mm to 55mm step down ring (DVX to +10CU)
http://www.adorama.com/FLD7255.html?searchinfo=72mm%20to%2055mm%20step%20 down&item_no=1

55mm to 52mm step down ring (+10CU to lens tube)
http://www.adorama.com/FLD5552.html?searchinfo=55mm%20to%2052mm%20step%20 down&item_no=1

Nikon lens to c-mount adapter
http://www.adorama.com/VDCMNKE.html?searchinfo=nikon%20c%20mount&item_no= 2

Opto Sigma 1500 Ground Glass
http://www.optosigma.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=OS&Product_Code =pg211

2 Aspheric lens elements
http://www.optosigma.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=OS&Product_Code =pg85

Similar adapters have been used with the Canon 16x manual and auto lenses and have not required and additional support so this should work perfectly well for the DVX on its own.

As I have mentioned before I'm also working on adapting this desing to include a 2.35 compression. This is, however, the first step.

JasonFox

01-18-2005, 01:54 PM

Mine is almost exactly like Shaw's except I'm only using one aspheric lens element -- Shaw, how are you using two? I'm also using a Canon C-mount as I like Canon lenses. However, the Nikon mount is easier to use with the 52mm tube. Took me a bit, but I finally figured out how to use the Canon mount. My +10 showed up today, so I can't wait to get home and try everything out. Keeping my fingers crossed. Of course, now Redrock says he'll have plans on how to make something for around $30. ???!!!! If that's true, I'll be both miffed and excited.

Fox

Shaw

01-18-2005, 02:35 PM

I'm interested in seeing Redrocks results as well! I've taken a look at the clip he posted but I can't tell too much from the (albeit light) compression.

One thing to keep in mind though is optical quality. You can make these things pretty much as cheap or as expensive as you want. I'm particuarily interested in trying all these different adapters out on a res chart.

BTW, good to see you Jason :). I go by AaronShaw over at DVinfo so we've had some short discussions.

Regarding the two aspheric elements: I'm using one as a condenser in front of the ground glass and one to re-capture the dispersed light after the ground glass.

Isaac_Brody

01-18-2005, 05:05 PM

Shaw,

Do you have a pic of your completed 35mm adaptor? I'm curious to see what it looks like.

Rich Lee

01-18-2005, 05:30 PM

ok, if i can make one for less then 200 im totaly in.

shaw have you tested out the design you posted on page one? have any sample images? of both the adaptor and some footage?

i wonder if i should wait to see what other options there are as far as the parts used before i start buying stuff.

JasonFox

01-18-2005, 08:45 PM

Hey, Aaron! My +10 seems to be working with the +4, +2 and +1 still on there. It's a cheap +10, though. I think I'll end up getting a couple of 55mm Hoya +10s when I can (as in, off eBay). My non +10s are all Hoya 55mm and they seem to be pretty good.

I just got back from Lowes with some halogen lights for shooting indoors (too cold in KC for outdoor testing). Everything seems cool at the moment, but it's too late really set things up for a proper test. Hopefully tomorrow.

So are your PCLX lens arranged (|||) or (||(| with that middle | being the GG? Did you try it with just the one PCLX to see if there was a difference? I'll gladly flip for another lens if it helps.

I'd also love a firmware crack that tells the DVX to flip the viewfinder image. The magnet works, but it ain't exactly graceful. Said the man shoehorning still lenses on his DVX.

Fox

Shaw

01-18-2005, 08:49 PM

Rich: no test footage yet. It's still being completed. Should have been more clear about that. I'll be sure to post footage from the completed adapter when I finish! Most of my effort has been put into researching materials and design. I wanted to limit the my expenses by having a rock solid plan first.

It would probably be best to wait a bit before purchasing parts or commiting to a specific adapter yet. There seem to be a few in the works by various DVXuser members and it would be best to test them all first - especially with regard to res charts.

Each type of adapter has its advantages and disadvantages of course. Redrocks is great because it doesn't have static grain. The only problem is that you can see the motion of the CD at times. The static versions have grain but no moving artifacts. And of course each will differ in the amount of res it can capture, overall sharpness, cost (redrocks design is apparently much cheaper!) etc.

Rich - the parts I listed will run about $240 USD or so.

I should have footage up within a week or so (waiting for a few final pieces to come in).

perhaps

01-18-2005, 08:51 PM

ok, i'm still a little iffy on this whole thing.

i'm a huge photography fanatic, and own several nice lenses (all canon)..
- 50mm f/1.4
- 17-40mm f/4
- 70-200mm

now, i'm assuming all of these can be used if i can mount them properly, but in this whole process i don't understand the point of having a "ground glass". why cant a custom mount just be built to hook the DVX up to my canon lenses? why must there be a "glass" inbetween? also, the ground glass seems to add unwanted grain, and requires effort to fix this (like vibrating it or spinning it), buy why is this? why does the glass any grain at all? lenses are obviously made of glass themselves and don't have this problem, so why not just..buy some clean glass! i'm really confused by this process, it seems like its more complicated than it should be, so can someone explain?

Shaw

01-18-2005, 08:55 PM

Hey Jason! You must have posted while I was typing a response.

My PLCX are setup like this: (| | |)

Whether it will make a significant enough of a difference I do not know yet. I'll be sure to let you know if it does! I'm just making an educated guess here (as it has been proven in the past that a condenser in front of the GG seems to help out a bit).

So you have a total diopter strength of +17? That's a lot! Man, I might have to get myself a second +10! Thanks for the info!

Shaw

01-18-2005, 08:57 PM

dakotapod

01-18-2005, 09:02 PM

I've been following this along with a few others that have popped up. The images look pretty good but hard to really tell compressed. What would you guys ballpark the loss of resolution to be? How would these images look on say a 10 or 20 foot projection screen? Would the image hold up pretty well?

perhaps

01-18-2005, 09:12 PM

Ahh! More posts while I'm typing a response :D

The ground glass acts as a projection screen. The projected image is then re-imaged by the camera. This allows you to keep all the 35mm DOF characteristics. A straight adapter would not retain the 35mm depth of field and would effectively turn even the widest 35mm lens into a telephoto due to the 1/3" sensor size (compared to the full 35mm frame)

but..a telephoto lens has a very shallow depth of field... so wouldn't that be beneficial?

also, i still just don't understand why a straight adaptor wouldnt retain the characteristics. once the light goes through the camera lense (like a 50mm), the depth of field is set.. a normal camera has no problems with it, so why isnt a video camera the same way (it should act just like your eye does..just recording the image on the other end of the SLR lense).

Shaw

01-18-2005, 09:15 PM

Telephoto yes it would be in that case.

I'll have to double check on the DOF thing. If you were to shrink the full 35m frame down to CCD size then yes you would lose the DOF but I'm not sure what would happen if you just stuck the lens onto the DVX. If you did that you would not have any wide angle whatsoever which isn't very good for film making (great for birds and stuff though).

EDIT: Dakota, I'm not sure. Each system has different optical characteristics. I can't guess off the top of my head. Barry probably could give you an estimate on how much res you loose with the real mini35.

Rich Lee

01-18-2005, 09:25 PM

sweet, then i will wait...240 isnt bad...im down for messin around with this stuff. im sure you will keep us posted. good stuff...

JasonFox

01-18-2005, 09:32 PM

perhaps -- you should be able to use all of those lenses, although I'm not sure how well AF lenses work. I bought a Canon 50mm f/1.8 MF for testing and it's working fine. I am going to test out my buddy's zoom lens (don't know the focal lengths) to see how an AF lens works. The advantage of MF may just be cost for those of us who don't already own nice glass.

Aaron -- from all I've seen, most people use 2 +10s as it's the fewest number of macros needed to achieve focus. Mine obviously works, but I've got 4 lenses screwed on there right now. This is a DVX problem with having such a wide-angle lens. I think Richard on DVInfo doesn't even have to use a single macro lens on his.

It'll also be interesting to see what Firre's design is. Redrock's looks pretty cool from the jpegs he posted earlier today (I think), but he's also shooting through some very nice glass from the looks of it.

Dakota -- don't know how any of this will look blown up and, not to be fiip, I don't care for the moment. I'm trying to put together a reel that will, on average, be seen on 27-32" TVs. I think I'd be looking at more complicated (expensive) solutions if I wanted to go to film or even just larger screens. But what do I know? I haven't even rolled tape yet with the adapter on.

Fox

perhaps

01-18-2005, 09:51 PM

i still really don't understand how the ground glass works. i've searched on google and cant find any technical explanation.

glass is transparent....you can see right through it...so why even use it? i mean, im sure there is a reason but since it hasn't been explained yet, basically it just sounds like everyone is sticking a dirty, speckled piece of glass in the middle of their lens adaptors and are trying to find a way to spin it to get rid of the grain.. how does this ground glass "project" anything at all? its transparent!

qazwsx

01-18-2005, 11:00 PM

It's ground glass, meaning it isn't transparent, more translucent or fogged.

perhaps

01-18-2005, 11:03 PM

yes, but what's the point of it? why not just use...clear glass, and remove the problem all together? or even..no glass? someone said its needed to project an image or something...but foggy or not, glass is see-through, and this isn't like a lense..its flat..so what is it doing?

qazwsx

01-18-2005, 11:06 PM

Read the first page of this
http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index.htm

Kirk Gillock

01-18-2005, 11:18 PM

perhaps - You're not alone. All this talk of optics and ground glass has got my head hurting. Be proud, atleast you understand more of it than I do.

Ok, I know how the image is projected onto the ground glass. Ground glass is not 100% transparent and acts as a screen (much like a projector screen - you can see a backwards image on the back of it). But I am still confused about the need for this middle-man. How does it maintain the DOF? And how do you get crisp images when ground glass is in the equation?

Interesting. This site is great!

Soliton

01-19-2005, 12:24 AM

Ok, P.K. I think I've got the very basic idea - is this correct?
The 35mm lens is used due to its ability to give shallow depth. The image from it 'shines' on the front of the ground glass. The DVX takes pictures of the image appearing on the ground glass back surface.
The DVX needs a lot of help to focus up close on the GG, that's what the +10s do.
The GG may also give the image a certain softness which can enhance the film look. ??

Shaw

01-19-2005, 10:59 AM

Perhaps: The GG itself does not cause a shallower DOF. All the ground glass does is act as an imaging screen. This allows you to capture the same 35mm DOF but ALSO capture the same 35mm field of view.

Lets think of it this way:

DOF is directly related to 1) how open the iris is and 2) focal length. A video camera needs a much shorter focal length to get the same field of view that a 35mm camera has because of the 1/3" chips. Because of this the DOF is much deeper. Now if we were to merely put a 35mm lens in front of the DVX the lens would still be creating a 35mm size image but your sensor would only capture a small piece of that. This of course would give you a super-telephoto lens (even with lenses considered wide angle for 35mm). So yes you would get very shallow DOF but you would NOT get the same 35mm field of view. Nor would the DOF characteristics be directly able to correlate with 35mm film because DOF relies on the combination of imager size and focal length.

Shooting a ground glass is like projecting a movie onto your wall and then filming it. Happens all the time in DIY telecine operations. You still retain all the characteristics of the film even though you are re-imaging the projected image with a video camera. In the case of a DIY telecine the diffuse light is being scattered off the wall, in the case of the GG the diffuse light is being scattered _through_ the GG. What this tells us is that for the ultimate bright image we want two things:

1) High diffusion (we don't want the light to merely pass through unaltered in its path)
2) We want high transmittance

Hope that made some sense. I'm just barely waking up (though I've been up for several hours!)

disjecta

01-19-2005, 11:22 AM

Now if we were to merely put a 35mm lens in front of the DVX the lens would still be creating a 35mm size image but your sensor would only capture a small piece of that. This of course would give you a super-telephoto lens (even with lenses considered wide angle for 35mm)

OKay, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I'd love a super telephoto lens but I don't think attaching a 35mm still camera lens directly to the DVX's fixed lens is going to give me that functionality, will it?

Neil Rowe

01-19-2005, 11:27 AM

..your right, it would not. hes referring to the field of view that is given from a particular 35mm lense when using 35mm capture area.. a 45mm lense would give you a particular field of view.. but on the dvx since your only seeing the center 1/3 inch of the frame that would normally be 35mm *your field of view is much smaller. it is not telephoto.. as in zoomed in or magnified in any way.. it is only a smaller field of view.
..and also DOF is not dependent on imager size. *the same lesne has the same dof projected whether your using a 35mm imager or a 1/3 inch imager.. you just get less of the same image with a smaller imager. this is the same as covering up part of a movie screen. it doesnt change the image that is projected just because you can see less of it. its only when you zoom out to get the same FOV (field of view) with the smaller imager so you can see the same framing *you lose apparent DOF. *but at the same focal length with same lense DOF it is exactly the same.

Shaw

01-19-2005, 11:29 AM

You are right it's not quite as simple as mounting a 35mm lens in front of the DVX. You would have to build some sort of relay system (I think..) so the plane in focus would match the plane of the cameras CCDs. It could be done but it would take a lot of effort in which case a mini35 adapter would be easier to build.

My intent was just to point out that the this would give a telephoto effect due to image size discrepancies. :)

EDIT: Looks like Niel posted while I was typing! :D

Shaw

01-19-2005, 11:33 AM

Niel:

regarding telephoto: assuming by telephoto we mean long focal length then zooming in and increasing the effective focal length by imager size should be precisely the same effect just achieved in different manners.

Regarding DOF and imager size: You're quite right. The imager does not directly matter in DOF. I was trying to point out that the combination of both imager size and focal length in respect to any given field of view will change the DOF.

Neil Rowe

01-19-2005, 12:08 PM

i do know what you are saying in regards to the telephoto thing when comparing a 35mm field of view to a 1/3" FOV, but im speaking in realtion to what steven had asked. *most people attribute the term "telephoto" with the ability to magnify or apparently bring the camera closer to the object which for all practical purposes as you said the image sizer would be doing considering that the resulting image can be played back at the same size. but the inherant qualities of a real telephoto lense such as the ability to bring out more actual detail and closeup resolution from the subject at the same set distance are lost beacuse if we did relay a 35mm lense straight to the DXV ccds the resulting FOV once the DVX lense was bypassed would be the same as just using the DVX lense for any given focal length. comparatively to the 35mm image at given focal length it is telephoto, but on the DVX is is excactly the same.

perhaps

01-19-2005, 01:42 PM

Shaw thanks for explaining the diffusion aspect, which is what I wasn't sure of. i know about DOF, aperture, etc (i'm a photographer), i simply could not understand why glass was necessary to transfer the light from the SLR lens to the DV lens...

and i'm still iffy about one thing..why is this the only solution? why couldn't two highquality mirrors be used to bounce the SLR lens image (whatever focal length it may be, 35 or 200mm) into the view of the camera lens? i understand that the GG is used as a projection surface, and the diffusion allows this to happen (and also requires extraneous methods to remove the grain), so why can't a small mirror system be used to project the image into a size which can then be zoomed in on by the camera and recorded?

Neil Rowe

01-19-2005, 01:49 PM

..condensing the image loses the apparent unsharpness of the image in the areas out of focus. * *example.. take a blurry photoshop image at 720x 480 px and resize it to * *1/4 the size. blurry things look sharper smaller. you need the 35mm area for the light to spread out, and reveal whats in focus vs out of focus better. in focus will stay sharper.. out of focus will blur more. *

we all wish it was that easy though. *ive been giving thought to using a system that doesnt project thgouh ground glass but projects onto a very luminescent white material *like a theater screen. it should get rid of the grain issue if the screen is very smooth. *i also hoping it would retain more light since it is more of a reflective situation than a refractive one. then the dvx would focus on that screen. you would need a couple optical quality mirrors or a very high quality prism though. *it would work similar to a ccd prism setup but backwards and only 2 ccds.

perhaps

01-19-2005, 01:55 PM

i understand the need to resize the image from the SLR lens down to 35mm so that it can be viewed by the dvx, but i'm really curious as to how there's not some way to do this with some mirrors to scale down the image (or a prism of some sort). you'd think that would be something available today.

also, my one last question about this matter... i've read here,
http://www.mediachance.com/dvdlab/dof/index2.htm
that a macro lens is needed for the DVX to properly capture the small 35mm surface, which makes sense. but uh, if that's the case, why is there a macro lens available for mounting on the DVX, but no other form of lens? that doesn't make sense to me... i understand panasonic may not want to create a whole line of lenses, but if a Macro lens can be fitted on, why couldn't a simple Canon EF lens mount be built? agh!

Neil Rowe

01-19-2005, 02:09 PM

..there is a way to scale dow the image using mirros or lenses but you wont get the 35mm DOf for the reasons i described above.

and panasonic could make a 35mm lense mount but it still has to go through the DVX lense. and again youd have to scale down the image to get the whole equivelent 35mm framing ont the DVX chips and for reasons described above you would lose the DOF from the image that is has when its spread out to 35mm size.

and thera are available and you can mount wide angle- telephoto- anamorphic- fisheye- mezmerizer- and all sorts of other lenses on the dvx.

perhaps

01-19-2005, 02:15 PM

i think you misread what i'm saying (i also think i worded it wrong).

i don't mean the image would go straight from the SLR lens into the DVX lens getting progressively smaller.. i mean, using mirrors, it would be projected to a larger mirror (at a 35mm area), and the DVX would then be zoomed into this area on the mirror.

i'm guessing this doesn't work, because it would be such a relatively painless and effective solution, so someone must have tried this already (or maybe not?)..but i'd like to know why it wouldn't work. it would be just like the GG, only grainless and with slightly more complex inner workings (a mirror system).

Rich Lee

01-19-2005, 02:17 PM

i dunno, the mirror thing might work. the guys who did the "Marla" movie used an old SLR with the top taken off and shot directly into the mirror with a video camera...

Shaw

01-19-2005, 02:19 PM

Didn't mean to insult your intelligence Perhaps! Just trying to make sure I had all angles covered :). You bring up an interesting thing with the mirrors. That's something I'll have to ponder about before commenting upon.

The idea you bring up Neil is a tricky one. I've been looking around for a diffuse material that doesn't have visible fibers/grain but haven't had much luck so far. A lot of things look like they would work well until you get them back lit :(. The only problem I can see with the theater screen is that they are usually designed for maximum reflectance of light rather than diffusion which would be very bad for our purposes.

This isn't, of course, the only solution out there as you ask perhaps! There are others which have been experimented with - each with their good and bad points.

Microcrystaline wax diffusers have been used in various incarnations. These do have less grain than a GG but they are hard to make well, without grain, and evenly distribute the wax. The idea of using a wax focusing screen created for medium format cameras has been suggested (can't remember the companies name). This seems like a very promising route but they don't come cheap. I don't think anyone has tried it yet because of the cost. It's something I'm thinking about doing though.

Another option is a holographic diffuser. These can create diffuse light very well and without hot spots. They have a transmission of up to 92% as well! Compared to the 50% or so of a GG this is great! I do not know how grainless these are though. I've been trying to get my hands on a custom one of these but haven't had luck yet so I'm going to be ordering a standard version to test in the mean time. If these do prove to be relatively grain-free then I think we could have found the (almost) ultimate solution.

More on these:
http://www.poc.com/lsd/default.asp

I know beattie focusing screens have been tried as well. The footage I have seen from this is absolutely amazing. Very bright and grainfree for a static adapter. The grain is still there but it's pretty small. Here are screen shots taken with an XL2:

http://www.holyzoo.com/111/xl2/35mm/stills/35mm_Still31.png
http://www.holyzoo.com/111/xl2/35mm/stills/35mm_Still23.png

Again though cost is a factor as the screen used cost about $150. It's a small price to pay in comparison to the mini35 though!

I've also been trying to think of a way to incorporate a dove prism into the design I described on page one. The problem is that there just isn't an easy way to mount a prism in a lens tube - or find a prism large enough! A dove prism wouldn't solve all the image orientation problems but it would at least give you a right side up image negating the need for the "magnet fix" and you can set the LCD to mirror in camera which would solve the other problem. Still pondering the idea...

Neil, you make some good arguements. I'll have to sit down and ponder this some more. Maybe draw up some diagrams to help myself internalize all the facets better. One thing which I can comment on though is that the center portion of a lens (which would be used with a 1/3" chip) is by far the sharpest part of the lens.

EDIT:

Rich, the image was projected onto the nikon imaging screen though so it wasn't straight from the mirrors.

JasonFox

01-19-2005, 02:59 PM

Aaron -- is this what you're talking about the Beattie? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=4324&is=REG

Fox

Shaw

01-19-2005, 03:00 PM

Yep, that's the one!

Shaw

01-19-2005, 03:15 PM

Actually, this is the precise one that was used in those grabs:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=4402&is=REG

The other should be just as good though. I'm guessing they only vary slightly in dimension for different MF viewing screen mounts.

LloydC

01-19-2005, 03:23 PM

$150 for a screen :o
why so expensive?

Rich Lee

01-19-2005, 03:49 PM

id pay 150 for that if it could get very little grain.

JasonFox

01-19-2005, 05:46 PM

Aaron - Any idea how to mount that screen in the ThorLabs version?

Fox

kyledroid

01-19-2005, 05:57 PM

Has anyone tried satin snow glass? I hear the guy will make a custom one for specific projects. He can even place them in filter rings? He states he uses 1500 grit but he stated he could get the grain smaller. But Steev over at holly zoo said that satin snow glass wasnt good enough. The owner of the company said that others who created their adapters thought the glass worked great.
So whats the deal?

Shaw

01-19-2005, 07:45 PM

Jason: Steve Dinkins (the guy who used this) sanded down the edges until it could be fit into a 55mm ring. In the case of the thor labs tube you would need to grind down the edges until it would fit inside a 52mm ring (thus the glass would need to be 50mm in diameter).

LloydC: The specific screen(s) are very much specialty items. There aren't very many medium format photographers in comparison to 35mm etc and even then there are a wide variety of screens for them to choose between. Due to low demand and the cost of creating such a fine screen you end up paying quite a bit for them.

kyledroid: can't say as I haven't used one myself. If he indeed can go finer then that might be a very viable solution instead of a $150 screen. The guy who owns the company really is a good guy.

Shaw

01-19-2005, 08:14 PM

For those interested in the fineness of grain with various screens:

Opto Sigma 1500
http://www.holyzoo.com/111/xl2/35mm...yDanceEdit2.mov

Beattie Screen

inside: http://www.holyzoo.com/111/xl2/35mm...eattie_Test.mov
outside: http://www.holyzoo.com/111/xl2/35mm/video/...tdoor_Test2.mov

As soon as I get my hands on a holographic diffuser I'll post results.

LloydC

01-19-2005, 08:35 PM

very cool footage Shaw
I see some vigneting one some of the shots though in the DarbyDanceEdit movie

JasonFox

01-19-2005, 09:18 PM

Holy cow, did you shoot all of that, Shaw? Did you grind down a beattie? Fun stuff. Loved Darby.

Shaw

01-19-2005, 09:23 PM

No, no, it's not my footage! It was shot by Steve Dinkins on an XL2. I haven't spent the money on a beattie screen yet. I'm still pondering what the best way to go is.

kyledroid

01-20-2005, 12:12 AM

Ive seen footage of some adapters (which will remain nameless) that seems to have the 35mm depth of field but lacks the sharp focus that 35mm delivers. Because of this, the object that the camcorder is focusing on seems to be sharp in certain places and blurry in others. Now i think this is a problem we all face when building an adapter for video cameras. Why does this happen? I believe it occurs because we open the iris of our lenses to the lowest f setting (so to get as much light as possible). Now ive read in certain cinematography based websites that the proper f setting for 35mm is around f4. However, the more contracted the lens iris is, the less light our cameras will pick up. So heres my question:
Is there a way to get good light performance out of an adapter on a f4 setting?

LloydC

01-20-2005, 12:26 AM

I got a couple questions...
1) for those empty filter rings... is there a way to purchase empty filter rings, or will you have to extract the core from say, a UV filter?
2) for the ground glass/beattie, why does it have to be hand grinded?

Brett_Erskine

01-20-2005, 05:37 AM

Not to send you away from this great forum but the answers to ALL of the questions I have been reading in the last two pages have been answers several times before here> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=31eb4921c56787402fbae4d3a88540b 8&forumid=70
Its become THE home base for this Mini35 project for some time so use the search feature on the site to get your questions answered.

rbilsbor

01-20-2005, 09:09 AM

Yeah I've been there a bunch... I guess the value of this thread is that it's DVX-specific, as opposed to XL2/PD170 etc.

Man I'm just waiting for this all to shake out... I've got a 35mm lens and a DVX and I can't wait until I can use them together, but I'm waiting for someone to find the closest-to-ideal static 35mm DVX adapter... good luck everyone! Meanwhile I'll be sitting back reading and waiting for someone smarter than I to figure it out.

JasonFox

01-20-2005, 09:37 AM

I tried delving into that thread on DVInfo and it made my head hurt. ;D Was pretty informative, though. In the end, I just had to pick something to attempt and dive in. Since I'm not looking for film-blowup quality, I'm not real concerned about getting everything perfect, which really helps on this project. At some point I'm sure someone will finally just produce something amazing for all of us to by or make good plans available.

LloydC - don't know if you can get empty rings, but you can find cheap UVs used at camera shops or even new at B&H. I think the cheapest are like six buck there. Although if you use the ThorLabs tube instead, it's only $25. Many ways to reach the same end.

Also, the GG doesn't have to be hand-ground. I think a lot of people are trying it in a effort to get the least amount of grain. I just bought the OptoSigma GG instead. I can only do so much myself!

Fox

ArkhamFilms

01-21-2005, 02:05 PM

Shaw-

How much for you to build me one of these?

I'd like to say I understand the theories behind all the glass, but... I don't. I just want to shoot something with it.

Seriously, how much?

-CJ
www.arkhamfilms.com

Shaw

01-21-2005, 09:40 PM

Well honestly I don't know! :D

Have you taken a look at redrocks setup? It certainly looks promising! Of course, not every adapter type is right for every person. At the very least I think it would be wise to wait until redrock posts new info with his updated machine.

Feel free to send me an email though :). aaronshaw[at]montanadsl.net

Shaw

01-21-2005, 09:45 PM

Kyledroid:

You bring up a good point. It's hard to build a system that is sharp. Especially given the fact that we aren't using custom made parts.

You are quite right about the aperture though. Generally a mid aperture such as f4 will give the sharpest images. Also, we aren't using zeiss primes! The light loss problem (with some designs) can severely limit the ability to select a mid range aperture as well.

atanguay

02-13-2005, 01:48 PM

Hey Shaw...

Did you get your setup working?

I have something to shoot really soon, so although I like what Redrock is doing, I don't have time to wait for whatever is happening over there. So I'm thinking about trying the Enormous Apparatus approach and I liked your ideas (and best of all specifics) on building one.

I like the idea of the sliding GG for setting up the focus. I can't imagine how he got lucky enough with the spacer rings to get the lens to be focused there. Seems like amazing luck.

So you're not doing the 2 diopters like James Webb?

Thanks
Andy

Coco Bermudez

02-14-2005, 11:29 PM

Great topic!

I have been following Redrock's device...but who knows when it will be done. The 35mm rig found at:

http://www.enormousapparatus.com/35adapter.htm

looks pretty good. I've been reading all the info found here and at dvinfo.net...but too much info is overload. I have a better chance of learning swahili in two days than understanding the complexities of making this make-shift lense work.

So here are some of the questions I have...maybe someone could point me in the right direction with a swift kick in the "huevos"

1. I have an old Minolta X-700 with a 50mm 1:17 lens (49mm ring filter). Would this lense work with a DVX100? The actual lens found in the 35mm lens adapter from Enormous Apparatus is a 58mm? Don't know if it makes a difference when adding the macros and all the other stuff.

2. Where do you find a GG that comes in a circular, filter type (screw in). All the places I've looked thay sell it just as a piece of glass. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

3. Condenser? What is that? Where can I get one? B&H Photo? Ritz camera?

4. Do they actually sell empty spacers? or do i have to buy the filter and get rid of the glass part?

5. Silver lens mount: Ok so if I understand this correctly...on one side you attach the lense...on the other it screws in to the spacer..or ring filter?

I just want to be a little prepared when I go my local photographic store. One gets tired of getting that "you idiot" look. :)

Sorry for all the elementary questions....just want to make one. i understand it will be grainy and all the other stuff.

Thanks

atanguay

02-15-2005, 12:28 AM

Before you ask James (he's a busy guy), I'll tell you what he said about GG to me. All of these things apply to James's method...

----"Anyway, what I did was the old-fashioned "grind your own" method. I bought 1 and 5 Micron WAO (White Aluminum Oxide). I got it online from gotgrit.com (approx. $6 for .5 lb). I don't think he even carries 1 Micron anymore. I ended up using the 5. The 1 was too fine and tends to polish smooth more than grind.

I used a $7-10 Hoya UV filter with the "C" ring fastener. Popped that out and the glass falls right out. Careful not to chip. Taped up one side of the filter glass. Got a 8x10 plane of glass from a framed photo and mixed about 1:2 water and WAO. You want to create a paste with a little "resistance" when grinding. Then grind in a circular pattern (within a larger circular pattern) for a total of about 1/2 hour - 1 hour. Maybe a little more. I did it over the course of days. I'd grind a little and test the results. Then do some more. I'd repeat if I got a finger print on it or found any inconsistencies, etc. I do remember using the 1 Micron intermittently, but I'm not sure if that had any effect on the final GG. Probably not."

----No empty spacers...just popping out the glass on cheap filters.

----I can't figure out what a condenser is either.

atanguay

02-15-2005, 10:49 AM

More good info from James....

"The condenser is a thin +4 macro. It should really be a PCX (plano-convex). But I bought a bunch of very thin, very weak macros and ended up using that one. For best results I would suggest using a PCX. But then again, I haven't kept up with the progress others are making. The PCX was the best solution last year."

(Condenser seems to mean how the lens/filter is used, not a specific type of lens. This is condensing the image on the ground glass inside the 'tube' of rings.)

"As for the lens mount, it did come off the camera body itself. That way I insured that the lens and the mount seamlessly worked together."

Coco Bermudez

02-15-2005, 11:18 AM

Atanguay:

thanks for the info...gee sounds a little complicated...but it probably isn't.

Do you know if Hoya's macro's are the best to use. They are pretty pricey at $70+ each for 10+ macro.

When you pop out the glass from the Hoya UV filter I guess when your done grinding...you pop it back in?

Gotgrit.com doesn't work for me...any other places I can get this paste stuff.

Shaw

02-15-2005, 11:45 AM

Atanguy: The setup does work. Depends on what you need though. I assume you have a DVX? The grain will be noticable in this version.

1. I have an old Minolta X-700 with a 50mm 1:17 lens (49mm ring filter). Would this lense work with a DVX100? The actual lens found in the 35mm lens adapter from Enormous Apparatus is a 58mm? Don't know if it makes a difference when adding the macros and all the other stuff.

Theoretically you could use any focal length you wanted with such an adapter. In practice, the focal lengths you use can be limited by your design. Some will vignette at certain focal lengths.

2. Where do you find a GG that comes in a circular, filter type (screw in). All the places I've looked thay sell it just as a piece of glass. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

Check out the links I posted a while back. I included a link to the OptoSigma 50mm diameter ground glass.

3. Condenser? What is that? Where can I get one? B&H Photo? Ritz camera?

"condenser" is used to describe a fast single lens that is used to control the focus of the light. In many cases it literally condenses - or shrinks - the image. You probably won't find optical components at a photographic shop.

4. Do they actually sell empty spacers? or do i have to buy the filter and get rid of the glass part?

I believe they do but found the OptoSigma lens tube to be much better. It allows for direct control over distances between elements which is a necessity. Link is a page or two back I believe.

5. Silver lens mount: Ok so if I understand this correctly...on one side you attach the lense...on the other it screws in to the spacer..or ring filter?

Basically yes. It's just a way to mount the lens to the actual apparatus.

atanguay

02-15-2005, 12:34 PM

>>>thanks for the info...gee sounds a little complicated...but it probably isn't.

There are quite a few ideas out there, but once again, no real...click here, order that, screw together solution to make perfection. Well, I guess except for the Micro35 now that I think about it. In the cheap arena I mean.
I've found that it all depends on your planned output, if the idea is to blow this stuff up to a big screen, or a really big screen, these static glass solutions are going to be bad news...having a static noise/grain pattern. But say you're making content for the web or something, there's a good chance that grain would get lost in the compression.
Right now I'm doing the medium format camera with a Beattie focusing screen concept, and it's working out pretty nicely. But once again, I'm not incredibly worried about grain, because this is web content that I'm shooting.

>>>>Do you know if Hoya's macro's are the best to use. They are pretty pricey at $70+ each for 10+ macro.

Do not know, but not a lot of selection out there if Google/Froogle are any indication. Seems to be one of the only ways to go. Some more digging might turn up another manufacturer...but B+H seems to list most of them and when the size and spec is filtered out, Hoya is left standing. Adorama has them cheaper, but are out of stock.

>>>When you pop out the glass from the Hoya UV filter I guess when your done grinding...you pop it back in?

Yes...that's the idea...get the clear piece of glass out of there, get the ground side on it for the lens to project it's image using James Webb's method, put it back together, and put it in your 'tube'. Now, how that tube is made the debate...Shaw has an elegant idea also as you can see above.

>>>>Gotgrit.com doesn't work for me...any other places I can get this paste stuff.

I just ordered from them the other day...maybe sunday. I would just wait...must be server trouble. Other than that I would hit google for other sources of AOX.

atanguay

02-15-2005, 12:49 PM

Atanguy: The setup does work. Depends on what you need though. I assume you have a DVX? The grain will be noticable in this version.

Thanks Shaw. Yeah, static grain doesn't bug me too much because I'm making a lot of web content, and that stuff seems to be getting left behind when I have to compress it down. So that's a good deal.

I've had this idea recently concerning grain. I'm wondering if you could take one of these static grain setups (the tube or the focus screen) and shoot a 50% gray card...as evenly lit as humanly possible. Then took a capture of that, inverted that, and used that as a 'lighten' adjustment over shot footage in your compositing or editing package.

The idea being to sort of take the pixels that are darkened by the grain and pushing them up to match the other pixels. Sort of a 'normalizing' image. Might need to be done to push up lighter pixels.

It's just an idea...and I figure out take some doing...and there probably is an layer compositing type that would work better than 'lighten'...but you see what I'm getting at. In fact, the gray would continue to lighten. Well, there's some way to use this image, I just need to think about it a little more.

Ever heard of anyone trying this? I figure it's worth a shot.

One trick I've used to get a noise free image is to take 3 or more of the exact same shot and use an 'averaging' program or plugin to take an average of the sequence of shots. The free program 'Panorama Tools' has an averager that works perfectly for this. You point to several locked down shots of the exact same thing and it will take each pixel from ShotA+ShotB+ShotC/3 and give you an image with the noise removed. Works really well.
I was thinking this could be done with the gray card. 3 averaged shots. This might also help in adjusting out vignetting.

An idea.

Coco Bermudez

02-15-2005, 02:13 PM

Hey guys

thanks for all the info...lets see with what lense I come up with. The stuff i will shoot will only be for regular 3:4 tv set..just commercial work and interviews.....

There is so much stuff out there when it comes to info..it sometimes gets confusing.....

thanks again

Coco Bermudez

02-15-2005, 03:01 PM

Hey Shaw:

"Check out the links I posted a while back. *I included a link to the OptoSigma 50mm diameter ground glass."

I saw the ground glass...does it come in a filter ring or I would have to find one to pop it in?

by the way your tube looks pretty cool...did it work? Do you have any pictures to show of the results?

How did you determine the position of the Aspheric Lens and the GG inside the Optics Tube. I saw that the tube has some sort of screw in groove. Is this to hold the lenses in place with the holder?

JasonFox

02-15-2005, 04:59 PM

The tube works well. The aspheric lens goes right up against the GG. You screw in retaining rings to hold the glass in the tube. Also, the GG and lens just slide into the tube. It is pretty slick, get the exact right distance may be tricky, but mine seemed to work. I found what the focal plane for my particular lens (a Canon FD) was and measured for it. It's stlll a bit of trial and error, though.

Coco Bermudez

02-15-2005, 09:30 PM

Jason:

how did you measured the focal plane?

do you have pictures or a diagram of yours?

Shaw

02-16-2005, 11:38 AM

Most 35mm lenses will have a back focal length of somewhere around 40+mm. That is to say, the image forms at about 40+ mm away from the back of the lens. Unless you can find the exact specs online (Nikon for instance is 46.5mm) you will have to just test. Set the lens to infinity and adjust the distance until it comes into sharp focus.

I hear you Super8. There's definitely a lot of information, ideas, and different plans running around the net. Determining what is "best" requires either a lot of experimentation or a fairly good knowledge of optical systems. Feel free to ask questions here though. There are numerous people here that have been around long enough to know what works best in some circumstances.

Atanguy: Absolutely that should work. I proposed this same idea on another forum a while back. It seems to work decently. The only real problem is keeping the grain in precisely the same place. So if you take the adapter off and then put it on again you would need to take another set of "noise" pictures. Still, it does seem to work well when done correctly :).

JasonFox

02-16-2005, 06:43 PM

Super8 - I found the specs for the Canon focal plane online somewhere (I think it was 42mm, but don't quote me on that). From there I just had to try and get it close since the tube is opaque. Hmmm, with a clear tube, you could measure, mark and get it set pretty precisely. Oh well, I doubt ThorLabs will make a clear tube just for us. No pics at the moment. I'm in the middle of quitting one job, moving to a new state, buying a house, starting a new job, not having a heart attack.

Shaw- if you're still interested in my parts, now's the time. I'll be packing them up in the next couple of days. I'll still be selling them, but it'll be at least a month until that happens.

Fox

Coco Bermudez

02-16-2005, 09:22 PM

Hey guys:

all of you have been of enormeous help. I have printed all the info you gave me and all the other I have found. I am ready to build me a freaking telescope!

Knowing that i am one lazy bastard...I will first attempt to do it the easy way...copy exacty the one they have at Enormous Apparatus...how difficult can it be (yikes I jinxed it!) Plus they are using a DVX100 so I might get lucky....

If I fail, I will do it the way you guys have pointed me out.

Gee Redrock! finish up your aparatus soon! :D

Coco Bermudez

02-17-2005, 06:19 PM

Hey guys.....

need some help here! Ok so I am ordering everything I need from B&H Photo to make this 35mm Enormous Apparatus. I have tried to order exactly everything that is in the list. Got a couple of basic questions.

Where do i purchase the silver lens mount? As I said I have a Minolta 50/1.7 MD Lens with a filter ring size of 49mm. The only lens mounts I've found in B&H are something called "Reverse Adapter for Mounting Lenses with 49mm Filter Threads Backwards on Minolta MD Bodies" I'm guessing this is not it?

How do you get the lenses out of the filters in order to create the spacers. I was experimenting with an old UV filter trying to get the lense out...that mother is crazy glued in! Do you just smash the filter to pieces? I dont care to do it..but then how do i get the GG I am about to polish to come out without a hitch?

Which HOYA UV filter do you guys reccomend? I am purchasing a 55mm Haze UV(0) (HMC) Multi-Coated Glass Filter ..but there are others that have no haze and ultra haze and all that good stuff. Does it matter if i am going to polish it with the grit stuff.

HELP! i can taste victory fellas!

JasonFox

02-17-2005, 08:41 PM

This is why I went with the ThorLabs tube version. :-/ You do NOT want that lens mount you mentioned -- it's for turning a regular lens into a macro lens by mounting it backwards. You're discovering the same issue I had -- and James Webb never wrote me back to tell me just what that lens mount is. I ended up using a c-mount adapter, taken apart and attached to a step ring (mine happened to be a 52mm to 58mm) with set screws.

Crush them filters to get the spacers.

As for the GG, you somehow use a polishing compound on a UV filter to give it that frosted look. I'm guessing something like liquid sandpaper, 1000 or 1500 grit. Since you're grinding the glass anyway, I don't know why you would need a multicoated Hoya instead of a basic. And I'm guessing you'll have to polish the lens with the glass still in the filter ring.

Good luck, my friend.

Fox

Coco Bermudez

02-17-2005, 08:45 PM

Thanks Jason....

as soon as I get this darn thing constructed and successful...i will post some video

atanguay

02-17-2005, 09:51 PM

Here's how you make the GG from a UV filter from James Webb:

"Anyway, what I did was the old-fashioned "grind your own" method. I bought 1 and 5 Micron WAO (White Aluminum Oxide). I got it online from gotgrit.com (approx. $6 for .5 lb). I don't think he even carries 1 Micron anymore. I ended up using the 5. The 1 was too fine and tends to polish smooth more than grind.

I used a $7-10 Hoya UV filter with the "C" ring fastener. Popped that out and the glass falls right out. Careful not to chip. Taped up one side of the filter glass. Got a 8x10 plane of glass from a framed photo and mixed about 1:2 water and WAO. You want to create a paste with a little "resistance" when grinding. Then grind in a circular pattern (within a larger circular pattern) for a total of about 1/2 hour - 1 hour. Maybe a little more. I did it over the course of days. I'd grind a little and test the results. Then do some more. I'd repeat if I got a finger print on it or found any inconsistencies, etc. I do remember using the 1 Micron intermittently, but I'm not sure if that had any effect on the final GG. Probably not."

atanguay

02-17-2005, 09:59 PM

Also from James Webb about his setup.

I asked him if the silver ring was from a camera body...and he replied:

"As for the lens mount, it did come off the camera body itself. That way I insured that the lens and the mount seamlessly worked together."

So I'm asuming he tore apart an old body and mounted that to a ring or something.

Personally I'm trying the tube thing suggested way back there. Seems a little more straight forward. I am grinding my own glass though since OptoSigma is backordered on that ground glass.

I got the WAOX today...two baggies of white powder...boy that could have gotten messy if I'd opened it at the post office. In many many ways.

Coco Bermudez

02-17-2005, 10:38 PM

DO any of you guys know if the HOYA close up macro +10 lens is front threaded and meant to be used in combination with other close-up lenses? It looks like it in the picture but some macros are not front threaded

JasonFox

02-18-2005, 08:50 AM

atanguay -- I'll sell you that OptoSigma GG if you want.

atanguay

02-18-2005, 10:40 AM

Hey Jason...how much would you want for that? Maybe I can cancel my backorder. I guess this would be better for a PM. 8-)

Coco Bermudez

02-21-2005, 07:57 AM

hey guys!

got all the components ready to create this bad mother.

One question though? Does anyone know which side of the glass I need to ground or polish with the WAO? Does it make any difference? Maybe the side pointing towards the subject or is it the side poiinting towards the camera lens?

Thanks

Coco Bermudez

02-22-2005, 09:06 AM

Does anyone know if anyone sells a Ground Glass already in a filter ring?

By the way..is a diffuser the same as a ground glass? These things are hard to find!

atanguay

02-22-2005, 04:00 PM

Anyone have any tips for getting the Cmount adapter on the Thor Labs tube?

I've been following Shaw's recipe from the first page pretty much down to the letter, but now I'm trying to get the lense mount on to the end of my tube.

Anybody have any good methods for this?

Thanks!
A

Shaw

02-22-2005, 05:02 PM

Super8: Yes, generally speaking. A ground glass is a type of diffuser. There are other types as well such as flashed opal, holographic etc. The term ground glass is used by most DIY as interchangable with diffuser although it technically is not.

Atanguy: Sorry for not explaining about that! Darn! I haven't tried this method myself but it has worked for others:

Remove the back plate of the c-mount adapter. This should give you a perfect fit over the end of the tube. You will have to find a way to keep this in place when you have finalised and tested everything which is a downside which probably means getting out some strong epoxy or similar.

Others have found various workarounds with step rings. I don't remember the precise means. I'll see if I can find it. The

atanguay

02-22-2005, 05:33 PM

Thanks Shaw...I was kind of thinking epoxy or something might be the deal.

If you happen to run across the mechanical way with step rings or something to do that, I'd be interested in hearing for sure. I'm going to hunt around a bit myself...but if you see something, please lemme know.

Thanks again! you guys rule.
Andy

Coco Bermudez

02-22-2005, 08:05 PM

Shaw:

Thanks for the clarification on the diffuser issue. DO you know which side I should ground? The side looking out towards the subject or the side looking into the camera lens?

Atanguay:

I went to my local camera shop. This guy is like an old camera geek...he is always helping me out with weird connections and what have you. I took Shaw's design for him to take a look at. He told me to take a look at a company called Scopetronix. He said that he knows they make a mount adapter on that type of tube. I've looked around:

www.scopetronix.com

they have some cool contraptions but I have no idea what anything does. if you find out let me know. i myself am about to build this 35mm Enormous Apparatus rig. i will post some footage and pics when done.

Hey guys we are getting as popular now as the micro 35 thread...yeah baby!

atanguay

02-22-2005, 08:44 PM

Thanks S8...I'll check the site.

I'm pretty sure I've heard that the ground side of the glass should face out toward the 35mm lens. Not 100%, but I'm pretty sure. I would imagine you would want that image going through as little glass as you possibly can.

I'll say, you're braver than I am. I hate that 'what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you' look I get from camera pro shop guys. Just today I was looking for a new Nikon lens to try with this setup and I know I was using the wrong term here and there and got some funny looks. I dare not let him know what I'm really attempting. Camera shop guys are often just one rung down the ladder from vinyl record shop owners for elitism in my experience.

Anyway...my current idea is to order a 52-55mm step up ring to give the lens adapter something to sit on as well as center it. At first I'm going to attempt to drill and tap some small set screw holes in it so I can screw it together nicely. When that fails (oh yeah, I expect it to fail) I'll at least have some nice surface area for an epoxy to grab both pieces. I want that link to be very strong since I'm going to be twisting lenses on and off of it.

As for making my ground glass, I took a 52mm clear UV lens and used a dremel metal cutting wheel to cut the ring loose. The glass looked like it was going to fit in the tube very nicely. As I was heading out of the basement, it slipped out of the little filter case, onto the floor and split in two. Ending tonight's GG work very abruptly. Great.

Other than that, the work is moving nicely.

Coco Bermudez

02-22-2005, 09:30 PM

Atanguay:

believe me brother..I get that look all the time when I go to a pro shop. It's frustrating to say the least...especially when I whip out the Panny and try to explain that I am about to shove this 35mm lens into the front lens of a video camcorder. Their look....Priceless! ha ha

I have been working on my adapter. I think I have a round around to polishing a GG...but I will have to test it. If it works I will cry tears of joy...it might look pretty but it just might work.

On Sunday I was at a Menonite church auction and I was looking around their yard sale and I found a Chinon CS camera that had 4 awesome lenses...the mount was very different from my Minolta. It is of a screw in type. I was elated and pissed cause I had just that morning destroyed my Minolta mount...DARN!
Atanguay:

believe me brother..I get that look all the time when I go to a pro shop. It's frustrating to say the least...especially when I whip out the Panny and try to explain that I am about to shove this 35mm lens into the front lens of a video camcorder. Their look....Priceless! ha ha

I have been working on my adapter. I think I have a round around to polishing a GG...but I will have to test it. If it works I will cry tears of joy...it might look pretty but it just might work.

On Sunday I was at a Menonite church auction and I was looking around their yard sale and I found a Chinon CS camera that had 4 awesome lenses...the mount was very different from my Minolta. It is of a screw in type. I was elated and pissed cause I had just that morning destroyed my Minolta mount...DARN!

Atanguay:

believe me brother..I get that look all the time when I go to a pro shop. It's frustrating to say the least...especially when I whip out the Panny and try to explain that I am about to shove this 35mm lens into the front lens of a video camcorder. Their look....Priceless! ha ha

I have been working on my adapter. I think I have a round around to polishing a GG...but I will have to test it. If it works I will cry tears of joy...it might look pretty but it just might work.

On Sunday I was at a Menonite church auction and I was looking around their yard sale and I found a Chinon CS camera that had 4 awesome lenses...the mount was very different from my Minolta. It is of a screw in type. I was elated and pissed cause I had just that morning destroyed my Minolta mount...DARN!

I am on my way...i know it will not be as groundbreaking as the micro or mini 35...but i am pumped!

Coco Bermudez

02-22-2005, 09:31 PM

UH what the hell happened to my post....
am I a broken record or what?

Maybe my brain just had enough of this adapter thingy...better go to bed

OB1

02-23-2005, 09:01 PM

OK, Shaw, everyone:

the post that started this thread had a link:
http://www.enormousapparatus.com/35adapter.htm

The setup on this link just shows the 35mm lens with all kinds of spacers and a stepdown adapter running right up to the DVX lens - "Simple Design".

Later on we start talking about rotating ground glass and screens and prisms and mirrors and old used CD motors - "Complex Design".

Were the shorts on that site ( http://WWW.ENORMOUSAPPARATUS.COM/ ) not simply shot with the setup that was displayed on that site (the 35 mm lens, rings, stepdown adapter) - "Simple Design" ?

I mean I'm seeing two seperate animals here. ("Simple Design" and "Complex Design" setup)
Have I missed something?

Do these two items not produce the same result (controlled DOF?) What are the differences? Why not just use the "Simple Design"?

WTF?

I have several Canon Lens' (15mm up to 300mm) and want to use these too. But man we need to simplify this if we can.

HELP! ::)

atanguay

02-23-2005, 10:17 PM

Well, I'm not sure it's a WTF situation really...but...

Short answer, yes, they do the same things, controlled DOF utilizing 35mm lenses.

Basically, the updated recipe that Shaw has given at the bottom of that first page allows a bit more flexibility in getting the focusing on the GG plane right without buying a bunch of $10+ UV filters only to break out the glass and use just the ring. Three of them buys you the nice clean optics tube from the cool guys at Thor Labs (they send a box of goodies with every order and ship fast).

Also note that James Webb has two thicknesses of filters on there...so unless you can play with them right there in the store, you have no idea how tall they're going to be until they show up in the mail. I imagine you can try and find out which brands use which heights, but I'm not sure.

If you've got access to a stack of 55mm filters or better yet, ones with broken glass for free or next to free, then you can create the tube from them nicely. I think that James Webb's initial design was this way because he had these handy. He'll be the first to admit that he stopped working on it last year.

The extra optics are to help some of the edge vignetting that James Webb is getting if you check the footage and the stills. Shaw would be much better at explaining this than me, for sure.

So, basically James Webb's setup does and can work, but Shaw has proposed something a little more flexible in the setup. That's about it.

Also, Shaw's design let's you not deal with grinding your own glass, which is no small chore. Just getting the glass out of there in one piece would try anyone's patience. His design is very close to the 'Click-Order-Screw Together-Go Shoot' concept that lots of people who just want to shoot are interested in.

A

atanguay

02-23-2005, 10:37 PM

----Mounting the Nikon Lens Mount adapter.----

Today I went by a local camera shop to try and find a way to marry the Nikon Lens Adapter to the 52mm tube.

I found something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/14317-REG/%09%09%09Cokin_B044_52mm_Introduction_Kit_A.html

This is a better picture, bottom left:

http://www.mav-magazine.com/feb1999/cokin/

Basically it's some kind of adapter to a quick swap lens system. IIt was $7.49. It's 52mm threaded on one side and basically flat and broad on the other side...maybe 60mm on the outside edge. Like this:

. . . ___________________
. . . . . |_____________|

It gives you a nice platform to mount the lens adapter. My initial idea was to try and put some set screws in it and through the lens adapter. Sadly I couldn't find a tap small enough to work in the space available at several consumer style hardware places.

So instead I bought a '2-Ton' epoxy that sets up in about 8 hours. I took both surfaces and sanded them on a pretty fine sandpaper to remove any of the anodization. Once the metal was exposed I took a Dremel with a metal cutoff wheel and put some nice gouges in the metal to give the expoy something to hold on to. I also drilled some small VERY shallow holes in the lens adpater's exposed area to give it even more grip.

I Mixed up the epoxy and really carefully applied it to all the surfaces that needed to go together. Then this is the part I didn't like because there's no way to be dead bang perfect...I eyeballed it together. Luckily the epoxy has a 30 minute work time, so I was able to adjust it like crazy until I was very sure it was all lined up. Put it somewhere warm because epoxy likes warm, but not hot areas.

It's pretty much set up now and seems on there for good. Seems very very tough. I was worried because screwing lenses on and off could put a lot of torsional pressure on the epoxy.

If I were to do this again, I would sand more of the anodization off of the inside and outside tubes of the lens mount because the epoxy formed a kind of 'miniscus' up the sides of the lens mount inside and out. I'm sure it's fine, but I imagine it would be even that much stronger if it was grabbing onto the actual aluminum instead.

So, hopes that helps anybody who's working on this thing.

A

Coco Bermudez

02-23-2005, 10:59 PM

Atanguay:

dude that seem like a royal pain in the ass what you just did. Me being the lazy bastard that I am..I am going with the "simple" design of buying filter rings and all the other good stuff.

I am spent a prety penny cause I had no extra rings and I have no patience to shop around and wait for 2 weeks for it to come by.

Here is the list with price of what I have purchased from B&H

1 General Brand GBSUR5558 55mm-58mm Step-Up Ring (Lens to Filter) $5.95

1 Hoya HOUV55 55mm UV Haze Glass Filter $11.95

3 Tiffen TIUVP55 55mm UV Protector Glass Filter $27.75

1 General Brand GBSDR7255 72mm-55mm Step-Down Ring (Lens to Filter) $9.95

2 Hoya HOMCU55 55mm Macro Close-up +10 Lens $161.90

1 General Brand GBCUS55 55mm Close-up Kit (+1, +2, +4) Lens $19.95

1 Hoya HOFS55 55mm Fog Set (A&B) Effect Glass Filters $40.50

total: $277.95

If this doesn't work I will stick this barrell where the sun don't shine.

Anyone knows about CS cameras and their lenses. They are of the screw in type but I have no idea what filter size diameter they are...ive tried 37mm but it doesnt work...next i will try 43mm but it seems that it wont work either. Any ideas? Here are the lenses......anyone?

http://moviegroovy.com/lenses.html

atanguay

02-24-2005, 09:16 AM

Well, it wasn't that bad, I just went into a lot of detail just in case someone wants to give it a shot too. I know I always like as much detail as I can get when following someone else's design.

But I'll tell you this, now that the epoxy is at full strength, it's not going ANYWHERE. The whole thing is hard as a rock. I think it would take a chisel to get it off.

So I just have to finish my GG and I'm all set.

Let us know how the rings go together.

Shaw

02-24-2005, 12:33 PM

Super8: There are differeing opinions about which side to grind. Honestly, I don't think it makes a very large difference. However, I would personally grind the side the faces the 35mm lens.

OB1: atanguy is absolutely correct :D

atanguy: Sorry the adapter didn't work. Sounds like the epoxy will hold up just fine for you though :). I forget, are you using the DVX for your adapter?

atanguay

02-24-2005, 02:07 PM

Shaw-

Yeah, this is a DVX, so I'm following most of the recipe you layed down on the first page. The adapter is working just fine now with the epoxy.

I was a little worried not having a 'mechanical' solution for bolting these guys together, but I'm not really worried anymore, the epoxy is extremely strong and the centering seems to be as close as human eyes can get it.

Do you think the lens adapter and hence the lens itself being a millimeter off center or so would make a big difference? I mean once again, it looks dead on, but I can't be 100% sure.

Thanks!
Andy

OB1

02-24-2005, 06:02 PM

So, basically James Webb's setup does and can work, but Shaw has proposed something a little more flexible in the setup. That's about it.

atanguay: ok - thank you. I read your post 4 times. I suppose the justification for the "complex design" is to reduce the vignetting. I can certainly appreciate you guys' pursuit of good quality on this project.

I'll continue to watch this. I probably speak for a lot of us when I say that I'm glad you Shaw, Super8 and few others have the time to work on this the way you are. It's the sort of thing that ultimately brings others a lot of benefit and extended appreciation of their DVX.

Thanks again!

OB1

02-24-2005, 06:14 PM

Hey I meant to ask earlier:

What's the diffence between what you guys are doing here and the "micro 35" mega topic discussion going on this site as well?

atanguay

02-24-2005, 10:00 PM

The big thing for sure is the lack of spinning ground glass or CD wheel.

The benefit of the Micro35...if it ever gets done *cough*, is that the spinning glass will eliminate the static grain you can get with a nonmoving ground glass. There are both glass vibrator concepts and spinning wheel concepts. The only issue with the spinning disc is that if it's not very carefully ground, you can see a flickering that's pretty annoying. Looks like a movie from the turn of the century where everyone should be moving in fast motion.

The main point is where you plan on going with the video shot with a 35mm adapter. If you're smashing down to online pieces, then the static grain will more than likely be lost in the resizing and compression of the final movie. No worries.
If you're looking to go the opposite direction and blow something up for a film festival or something, then the static grain is going to be a bad scene.
How it would look at it's native resolution on a TV...good question. Not sure.

Also, the tube idea also is a bit more portable for on-the-shoulder style shooting. That's why I'm building it. I have a medium format camera setup for tripod shooting, but I want something I can put on my shoulder and play with a bit easier than that monstrosity.

Andy

Coco Bermudez

02-24-2005, 10:30 PM

OB1:

I think atanguay pretty much summed it all up when it comes to the differnece between the micro35 and what we are trying to accomplish.

I think it is totally cool that atanguay is doing it one way and I am doing it the other. It will be great to compare the results. I know I will get the grain...can I live with it...i guess I will have to decide when I see it in my PVM monitor. I know I have a couple of project due "yesterday" and these will only be web based interviews. As Andy said...the grain will probably be lost. If my stuff comes out looking anything like the movie "Life Against Memory" found at:

http://www.enormousapparatus.com/

I will be more than happy.

About the micro35...I jyst can't wait. I mean i pre-ordered the manual and I still haven't seen it in the mail...i can't imagine when I would be able to get my hands on one.

I will keep on working on my tube and as soon as I get anything I will let you guys know with exact part numbers...cost and all the goodies so you can get one too...100% idiot proof (off course if it really works)

p.s. i ordered the wrong stepdown rings so know i am back to waiting...but i got everything in today...even the WAO from Truegrit.com...I can taste...

Coco Bermudez

02-25-2005, 09:45 PM

Hey guys:

I started putting together the tube made of rings. My fingers are bleeding. Definately if you are going to buy rings with the lense...get Tiffen....they are much easier to take the lens out with out breaking the glass. All you got to do is play with the lense rotating it in its own axis...when it is loose then you can turn the ring that fastens it...just as easy. Just be ready to have some serious blisters...use some rubber gloves!..that should help.

I dont have yet my lens adapter to the ring..i am hoping to get something by Tuesday. I just topically put the lens on the tube...looks pretty cool. Not bad. i could use more spacers for my design to keep the image in focus. Tomorrow I am going to get some at Ritz Camera and try it again.

Sure it is grainy but DOF is real nice!

im out

Coco Bermudez

02-26-2005, 04:02 PM

Hey guys

put the adapter together as best i could...i am missing a couple of spacers but i will get it there. The image looks cool..grainy as heck but not bad. i will be posting some video later tonight. For now enjoy the picture of the adapter. Click below to get there.

http://moviegroovy.com/35mmadapter.html

Shaw

02-26-2005, 08:43 PM

Looks good :)

Any frame grabs from footage? Are you using the OptoSigma GG or a home made version?

Coco Bermudez

02-26-2005, 09:42 PM

Hey Shaw....

this is a real home made version. I got my 5 micron WAO from Truegrit.com but I have not yet done the GG.

I have been experimenting with different "alternative" forms of glass...namely paper and plastics ha ha. Just diggin back from my old...old...old photography books where they taught us how to make home made cameras. I have been looking around for types of opaque paper and plastics that would be able to project a 35mm image. I have been playing with acetate, velum and different sorts of drafting paper.

I am trying to get a real grungy look for my next project. i shoot a lot of pro8mm film and by itself that thing is grungy. I use it as B-roll...more for an artistic look.

For this series of test I used high grade velum used in wedding stationary. I was more than pleased with my first experiment. I know it is grainy as heck...but the colors are so true to life and very filmic. For my purposes I think it is beautiful...and all from velum.

i will be posting later tonight some video that i shot. As i go along I am taking detailed notes so I can then post them if others want to attain the same look.

atanguay

02-26-2005, 11:22 PM

Hey, Super8....looks cool. Especially nice with the big lens hood.
Can't wait to see a little footage.

Personally, I assembled my first complete 'Thor Labs' tube setup yesterday after 'finishing' grinding my glass, which for some reason has become a complete disaster. I'm kinda bummed about it. I ground the thing for a full hour and for some reason the middle of the glass has these odd tiny areas that look like they aren't ground, as if the glass was harder there or something. Very strange...and of course they're smack dab in the middle of the thing...the worst possible place for them. I don't really know if it was the glass, or my method or a combination of both. I'm kind of confused as to what went wrong.

But here's some good news for anyone grinding glass with White Aluminum Oxide...I think 30 minutes will do it just fine. I was grinding the circular glass on one flat piece of glass for the first part of the grinding, then I went and bought a bigger piece for the rest of it.
After close inspection when I was done, I really think the 5 micron WAOX is going to do all it's going to do by 30 minutes. Possibly less, I'm not sure. But I would say, a full hour of hand grinding is not necessary. So that's cool, because it's tiring and boring. Some other tips that I came up with as I did it. I made my WAOX/water slurry and then put it in a mustard style squirter bottle, so when I needed to refresh it, I could just grab it and squirt a little on there. I also put the glass on a bed of damp paper towels so that they cushion but do not sap moisture away from the glass.

The final product looked pretty nice to me (barring those weird areas) but I would say the bees/white wax solution gave me better looking, less grainy screen area...I'm thinking about trying this again, it was really beautiful when it worked. I think I can get an even application in such a small area. My previous experiments with wax screens failed because I was trying to make a very large focus plane for a medium format camera back. Just too hard to control. I think I can make a 50mm tube one much easier. I may try that tomorrow...after paying another 9 bucks a shot for a round poece of glass...man, what a rip off. Ah well. Keeps you out of trouble right?
;)

Coco Bermudez

02-26-2005, 11:33 PM

Atanguay:

Keep at it. Thanks for the info..i am preparing to grind the glass in two days.

Well, here is the video I promised. Keep in mind that I am using just Velum as my glass...so it is real grainy...but there is a beauty about it...maybe it is because I am such a Super8 freak. Reminds me a lot of grungy 8mm stock. I am totally excited about using this as an alternative to shooting, developing and ranking Super8.

There is some vignetting because the lens is not properly attached yet...I am waiting for the attachement on Tuesday...then I can experiment some more.

Ok gang...here it is! Enjoy

http://moviegroovy.com/35mmadaptervideo.html

OB1

02-27-2005, 08:09 AM

Super 8:

Looks very promising - definately will have great applications!

Keep us posted about the glass and the attachment.

What model of DVX is all black in color like you have? I thought that looked as good as your lens! thanks - OB1

atanguay

02-27-2005, 08:59 AM

Cool stuff S8...the vellum does have an neat look...maybe this will start yet another topic around here about alternate focusing planes...you'll have people talking about how to slice an apple thin enough...or which brand of zip lock freezer bags work best. ;D

Why does the grain seem to move though? Are you holding the tube on there yourself or something maybe? Or is the internal stabilization on? Maybe that's it.

Coco Bermudez

02-27-2005, 10:14 AM

The grain seems to move because i was holding the whole lens in front of the camera. it is not secure yet so i didn't want it crashing all the way to the ground.

I tried to get my local lens crafter to polish me some glass..but they refused....bastards! I will be postong later some more footage later.

Shaw

02-27-2005, 10:22 AM

Microcrystaline wax does seem very promising :)

The movietube uses a microcrystaline wax mixture. It could theoretically be visually grainless.

finding a grainless static piece is much harder than it would seem! I've been searching for some time trying to find the best solution. Wax seems to be it so far but getting it right can be a pain as you mentioned.

atanguay

02-27-2005, 10:54 AM

Super8-

Ah, that makes sense about the roving grain. 8-)

If you do go to grind your glass today, I would really recommend doing it for 15 minutes and taking a look at it...that may be enough. If it's not, you can always do more. But it would be nice to know where the returns start to diminish so people don't waste their time grinding glass that is already as ground as it's going to get at a current micron level.

Also if you have enough scrap glass...my local hardware store had scrap pieces they cut off of larger pieces for 50 cents a piece...and you use a fresh piece after you stop and check the progress of the circle, you can get a benchmark as to where xx minutes gets you. Like when you're finally finished, you can compare the finished ground circle with the grinding flat glass.

My guess is like at about 20 minutes of solid, random polishing. Interesting stuff really. I was shocked at how quickly and uniformly the big piece of glass I was polishing against got. 30 minutes was plenty to make the whole (maybe 4 inch square) grinding area very very uniform. And now that I think about it, with the larger surface area not getting a constant grind through every stroke like the small round piece of glass, I would imagine the 50mm round would get much faster because it's in contact with the grit at every stroke.

I'm thinking about trying to make a suspended wax setup today...see if I can get that to work.

atanguay

02-27-2005, 11:18 AM

Hey Shaw-

Yeah, the wax/glass was absolutely gorgeous when I was playing with it. But a total pain...well, the problem I was having was a pain.

I was just having this issue where the wax would seperate from the glass as it cooled down. It was such a shame because I wasn't getting bubbles or any of the problems that a lot of other people are reporting a lot. I was putting folds of aluminum foil on either side as spacers, then using a pair of those black office style binder clips on either side. This way I could immerse the whole thing in the hot wax without any fear of it falling apart and all that stuff. It was a whole unit that could be pushed around and all that.

I would warm the whole thing up in the oven a little bit so that there was no cool spots on it for the wax to bind to, then pop it in the wax. The preheating made it flow very nicely. Then I would pull it out of the wax and try to either cool it very quickly, or I also tried cooling it slowly. In both instances things would look amazing, then I would start getting this 'spidering' that looked like cracks...and depending on the cooling method used, the spidering was ok to terrible.

The only thing I can think that could have caused this is the aluminum foil expanding when it cooled down...or that the binder clips were just putting too much pressure on the glass or the foil, or both, and when the pressure released, it just allowed it to creep away from the wax. I'm not sure as I stopped playing with it last fall. Keep in mind though that this piece of glass was like 3 inches by 2.5 inches...pretty large compared to what we're talking about here.

Once again though, the results with just bee's and white wax I bought at a local craft store was extraordinary. Just grain free and excellent. A thing I liked about it too was that the wax was sealed in there for good...so I could clean the glass like crazy, whereas with a ground glass, I've heard if you get a finger print on it or something, it's next to impossible to get really clean.

Hey, on another note, I was wondering if you could explain to us how the two aspheric lenses and the macro lens function in the design. I'm sort of more curious about the lenses. Not knowing much..ok, next to nothing...about optics I'm a little foggy on what these boys do. The macro lens I think is just to allow the camera to focus on such a close focus plane. That may help me make sense of what I'm seeing in my tube.

Thanks!
Andy

Coco Bermudez

02-27-2005, 06:13 PM

Hey guys:

here is the rest of the movies I shot yesterday. i will start with the other forms of transfers for GG tomorrow.

By the way...is there an exact formula to combine the WAO with water? Im interested in knowing more of the wax.

Ok...here is is the page. Enjoy

http://moviegroovy.com/MovieLinks.html

atanguay

02-27-2005, 08:11 PM

Hey S8...footage is really cool. Now what are you using as a focus plane in this footage? This doesn't look like more vellum. 8-) Especially on the closeup with two babies.

Here's a wax sandwich primer...

Basically the wax is sandwiched between two layers of glass. You space the two pieces of glass with something...people have used tape, or aluminum foil or whatever. Then you hold it together...like I was saying, I kind of think my binder clips were a little brutal for this so today I switched to rubber bands.

The wax is put there by heating up a pot of a wax mixture and allowed to wick between the layers. Personally I immerse the whole thing so that I can try and tap out the little bubbles.

The wax is extremely fine and produces almost no grain whatsoever...it really looks nice. So far my experience has been ok. The big issue people have is bubbles or little air pockets trapped in there. This does happen...but I was having good luck, except I was getting the seperation I was mentioning above. On some of the ones I was making, if I hadn't gotten the seperation, I would have had a near perfect focus plane.

Here is something that I saved from last year from a guy who really seemed to know what he's talking about...

=================================

"Frank, good work, but here is a way you can make a high top quality GG (It is a inside information from my manufacturer. I make some working low cost prof. 35mm solution with and without vibration GG and this time i only examine the patent problems): For the best result the wax must have a special composition of paraffin and white bees wax (in german "Paraffin" and "Bienenwachs" i hope the translate software are right). The mixture is approx.. 10% white bees wax

First test it with 2 thin glasses (like cheap glasses for microscope). The wax layer must be thinner than 0,2mm, best results is about 0,09mm. Use narrow strips from aluminum paper, stick it together as spacer on the left and on the right side between the glasses, so it is a very smal space between the glasses. In a pot heat the Wax up. Keep perpendicular the
glasses, alu left and right, spaces up and down. Dip the glasses only at the upper edge into the liquid Wax. You will see, the wax rise slowly and without bubbles up in in the gap. You must also heat the glasses, otherwise the wax cools down. Now leave it slowly cooling. 5 minutes, not faster. Maybe use a hair dryer to heat the sides. It is ideal, if the middle cools first

Because the wax layer is very thin, the loose of light is smal, but it brings a big hot-spot. To eliminate this, put 2 convex lenses (+4dip) with flat sides immediately in front and after the GG. Or... Thats the best way of all: Don´t use the 2 glasses, use the lenses and fill the wax immediately between them. In this way, it is particlarly difficult to cooled the wax first in the middle. It work with cool air (blow with Straw on the thickest point of the lenses left and right), or soft heat only on the sides. But remind: colling 5 minutes, not faster"

=================================

Now, I have followed what he said about the mixture of paraffin to white beeswax...but I have not really followed the rule about 5 minute cooling time...I've found that I get little rings as it crystalizes at different rates if I do it this way. I've taken to throwing them in the fridge or even the freezer to sort of shock cool them. Seems to make a more even wax to me. I got my wax at a hardware store...for canning, and the bees wax at a craft store (Michael's)...so it's a pretty cheap thing to try.

As for the water mixture...I'm not sure but I was reading about telescope making. The term they use is slurry...I made mine about the consistancy of a very runny mud. James Webb mentioned it having a little resistance...but not be like a paste. So that's what I tried to do.

But I spose mine didn't go quite right, so it's hard to say. The big plate glass sure looked good though, wish I was making a big plate GG.