Home Made Mini 35 Wow!!!

[Brett_Erskine]

Kyle please share with us how.

There are more than a few people that want to know how to BOTH flip and mirror the image without a prism or a magnet. You dont mean with a second monitor do you? Im curious.

[kyle_doris]

i think you misunderstand... the image will be flipped on the ground glass, so you it appears the right way on your LCD by virtue of the CCDs taking in the proper image...

[Brett_Erskine]

No. I wish that was true though. The built in lens on the DVX100 (just like just about all lenses) project the image upside down on the CCDs. The image appear right side up to us because the CCD are also essentially mounted upside down inside the camera as well. So in this case "Two wrongs DO make a right". Throwing another lens in front of that system with a GG screen in between and your back side down again. Try it. You'll see what I mean.

-Brett Erskine
Freelance Cine/Videographer
www.CinematographerReels.com

[kyle_doris]

hmmm.

okay! ;-) like i said, i have no reason to doubt the people working on mine atm.

btw, how's your rig coming? have you been able to get a decent image from your device yet? we've been getting some awesome results, we had some slight vingetting with 1 10x diopter, but with a second it seems to have corrected that problem. i'd love to hear about your progress.

[kyle_doris]

Building something that attaches to the DVX's lens bayonet will be the quickest and strongest way to go. *As for Agus vs. Aldu, I've never seen any full-rez imagery from the Aldu35 so I have no way of knowing if the grain pattern is visible or not. *You can't tell on web footage, you need full-res original DV footage that you can play on your TV. The Aldu seems like it can't possibly deliver that grain-free experience (too good to be true type of situation) but if it does, it may be vastly superior to the Agus because the noise of the Agus would likely be noticeable in close circumstances.

this is basically the 'perma-grain' issue. and yes, it happens. good observation barry, in reality you are pretty much dead on. however, i have a feeling we'll be able to get rid of it since the gg we cut was pretty low grit. hopefully i'll know soon.

[Brett_Erskine]

Im in the same boat as far as grain. I can barely make it out on well exposed/solid color sections of the image (ie sky) when you pan or tilt the camera. Otherwise the grain cant be seen.

-Brett

[kyle_doris]

yup, it's quite the pain.

honestly however, i'm definately going to keep the low grit cut glass. most of the people we are working with all say there is a place for it. it makes the video look much like super 8 or 8mm film (for some things that would be advantagous). but for general use it's just not gonna cut it.

[Taylor Moore]

Came across this on dvinfo.net

Fellow has come up with a static version of Mini35
stills and video.

http://homepage.mac.com/dvx100/PhotoAlbum2.html

[Guest]

That a example of the basic design I've been talking about for months on this and the DVinfo thread. Check out the pictures to get a better idea. The only difference is he used filter rings for spacers instead of adjustable focus tubes. By using filter rings its definately a easier and more economical way of building it but you can't change between two lens makes (ie canon to nikon, PL mount etc etc.) and you cant fine tune the focus. This may or may not be a problem because not every filter ring is exactly correct so using filter rings may not give you a accurate back focus. If its off even a mm your 35mm lens focus markings wont be accurate or worse. I always recomend you get a machine shop to thread the inside of one pipe and the outside of another to make yourself a adjustable focus tube. Spray the inside with a fine coat of flat black paint. That way your adapter is as sharp and accurate as can be and wont be limited to one make of lens.

[Barry_Green]

Hey Brett, have you seen full-res DV footage from that guy's adapter (or anyone's, for that matter?) I looked at the stills and there was a very noticeable pattern, but that could be grain from the ground glass or it could be mosquito noise from excessive jpg compression...

... it's just overwhelming to search through the threads at dvinfo.net. Has anyone made a DVX adapter that WORKS -- meaning, the grain's not obtrusive, the focus is sharp, etc? Anywhere we can see full-resolution DV .avi footage from one?

[jdk2man]

Been reading these and it makes me wonder if anyone has tried using a anamorphic prism inside one of these to sqeeze the image down so your killing two birds with one stone.
heres a link to a prism.

http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productID=2429

not sure if it would work or not.

Mark

[kyle_doris]

Barry, the adapter i've been working on is almost through it's third phase, we are just waiting on a part from the CNC machine that broke... i think this might be the one!

i'll let ya know.

[Barry_Green]

That sample footage looks promising. I don't remember -- are you using a static design or the spinning design? If static, how's the grain issue?

[kyle_doris]

yes, i did send footage.

we are using static ground glass. karl does have a back up plan to possibly go spinning, but the idea is to try to keep moving parts to a minimum if possible.

the grain issue (as before) rendered the footage looking pretty cool. but for the purposes of most, makes it unusable. the glass in version 1 and 2 was 700 grit. we are pretty confident once we stick this new glass in we'll see much better results. whether or not it is good enough? only a test will tell us that, and until the CNC machine is fixed, we are in limbo. the version 3 device should be done sometime this weekend.

[mrbimmer]

Sweet...I have been working on my adapter and it is similar to the Agus35...I will post some pics shortly..I am also working on a static version... :D My "Agus35 works decent with little vignetting..

[kyle_doris]

http://files.powdahound.com/kyle/proof.jpg

[kai]

great looking stills Kyle...

[kyle_doris]

yea that's pretty much final proto version. we've been learning a lot lately as to what is capable with static ground glass. fact of the matter is, you'll never get rid of the 'perma grain' issue completely, but you can get it down to usable states, especially in artificial lighting situations it nearly disappears in moving shots (and completely unnoticable in still shots)... hopefully as we test more lighting situations and different mm lenses we'll have more information as to just how capable it is.

i will say this... when you guys finally see the way this baby is mounted, you'll be quite happy. fans of the agus and aldu will be WISHING they had a DVX, i can promise you that :)

i'd say we are a month away!

[Guest]

What's up guys! Barry, I echo the sentiment on looking at the posts on dvinfo.net. It's difficult to sift through everything and get a definitive answer.
Brett,
I have been reading enough to know that you have devoted a ton of time to this and if you could help, it'd be great. I know this topic has been beaten to death, but, I figured screw it. I bought an old 6 x 4.5 Bronica medium format camera with a 75mm 2.8 lens for $300.00. I'm a photographer by trade so if this doesn't work, I'll just have fun with my new camera. Anyway, I intend on shooting directly down into the focus screen, like the guys at marlathemovie.com that did a fantastic job. I don't even need an achromat to get a full frame. My question is, should I grind my own glass with aluminium oxide or try a Bosscreen, Beattie intenscreen, or a Brightscreen? Any input would be great. Also, I'm concerned about the whole focus pull issue. Anybody have tips on rigging a focus pull for a medium format lens?
All the best and good luck, Mike

[Guest]

All the same rules apply when making a adapter for a 35mm lens versus a medium format. The only POSSIBLE exception is with the large medium format lens your less likely to see grain in your image. As far as which has the least grain between Bosscreen, Beattie intenscreen, or a Brightscreen or home made aluminum oxide ground glass....Believe it or not your home made AO screen is going to be the least grainy. I've seen or heard about the rest. Now this is only true if you have patience when you grind your AO gg. I was able to make mine appear grainless except for the parts of the image that are blown out. If you make a adapter with medium format lens/larger GG then this effect is even less noticeable. I made my GG by using high quality AEO9 aluminum oxide powder. I found a glass plate with a flat bottom. Filled it up with a thin layer of water and put in just a pinch of aluminum oxide. Then I took the glass out of a UV filter, tapped up one side of the glass so it wouldnt be scratched and then started to grind. The trick is to always move in a circle, never use any downward pressure and watch TV while you do it because your going to be there for a few hours. You can check your progress by rinsing the glass off and letting it dry for a moment. When your done - its a pretty thing. So there you go.

Some other things to keep in mind though:
1)Your likely to need some type of condenser (ie plano convex lens, ie screw on close up filter, ie diopter) to correct for the light fall off at the edges of the frame. Dont ask me what power because its different for each set up. It has to do with three things - back focus distance, distance between GG and video camera and finally how diffused your gg is. Trail and error buddy - sorry.
2)The wider you can open your film lens (35mm/medium format) the less GG grain your going to see in the image. Medium format lenses rarely open up past f2.8 while cheap 35mm lenses that open to 1.8 or 1.4 can be easily found. With this in mind and the extra size of medium format GG you may be back to square one when it comes to apparent grain.
Im not sure which is better. But one thing is for sure...these adapters already take away at least 2 stops of light after they pass thru the GG. Add a lens that only opens to 2.8 and your in even more trouble. You can forget about shooting in doors with exisiting light half of the time.
3)Think about adding a mirror between the GG and the video camera so that you dont have to mount the camera pointing straight down. It just plain looks dumb. If the mirror is mounted at a 45 degree angle then you can mount your camera pointing in the same direction as the film lens. Remember to use a OPTICAL GRADE mirror. These mirrors have the silver side IN FRONT of the glass. A regular mirror is the opposite. -Google Search- Honestly though if you want to use your set up on professional productions you better make your own slick looking housing and forget what other people did in a pinch.

Brett Erskine
Freelance Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@mail.com
(714)329-1520

[Guest]

Brett,
Thanks for the help. I checked the frame and could get full frame focus with no light fall off on a 6 x 4.5 Medium format screen. But to be honest, I'm looking through a gridded screen right now until I grind the glass. I am confused regarding the medium format to 35mm comparison. Isn't a 2.8 at 75mm lens (which is normal for medium format) equivalent to a 1.4 at 50mm lens for 35mm? Or maybe 1.8? Can anyone jump in? I may be totally wrong here. I feel wrong about everything lately. As for the design going straight up, with the medium format, it looks less amateurish the way I'm going to design it and I'm more concerned about the aesthetic in the end anyway. If I knew how to attach a jpeg, I'd show you the design. Plus, this is for my director's reel primarily. I want to be able to properly convey my work and I hope this project is a step in the direction of a more professional image. Any ideas on how to build a lever to attach to the focus ring that won't cost $3000.00 for a $3000.00 camera? ;) Best- Mike

[araujofh]

Has anyone actually made a working adapter for the dvx100?
I've been going through the threads and it seems like it is a pain in the arse to get one working for the dvx100.

Are you guys trying to find a solution?

All the best

Fidel.

[kyle_doris]

yes, i have made a DVX100A solution. i'm almost positive that it would also work with the DVX100 Classic ( ...if that is what your question is asking)

i have a friend in the city that has the classic and i'll be testing it out there shortly to make sure it's all good.

[Nimpsy]

Kyle Doris, how much would you say it altogether cost for your DVX100 solution? How long to build? You seem to be getting awesome results.

[kyle_doris]

we are hoping to get it up to the standards so we could sell em' to you guys for a <1000 a peice. but there is still much to be done.

your biggest expense is the C&C machine you need to built it... that's a few grand right there. plus some of the parts need a diamond cutter. in materials it's mainly the diopters... 10x diopters go for around 80 bucks off B&H, and the Kit's about 40.

it's more building machinery you need to actually make it, because ours is very precise in how it fits together with the DVX, we built it so the whole adapter can be removed within seconds... much like a lens itself. plus it's very easily handheld.

there are still problems though that need to be adressed before we ever tried something like this, plus each adapter we'd make would be 'to order' depending on what lenses you wish to use it with (... due to the flange difference of each specific line of lenses).

for example... the prototype was build modular but with the Pentax K-mount lenses in mind. This was for the simple reason you can find fairly fast SLR K-mount lenses on Ebay for VERY cheap. this we felt was the best way to start because it would be the lenses people would have the easiest acess to without burning a hole in their pocket.

only problem is, kmount lenses are old and are fairly heavy for handheld use. it makes the whole set up a little top heavy. so while it can still go handheld, it's sorta straining on your hand. we plan on making another with canon specifications for use with the newer canon SLRs. they are more money, but weigh virtually nothing. which is awesome because you can use our adapter and still have the portability of your DVX! (how cool is that!)

we felt the problem of using old large lenses really isn't an issue because you'll just be tripoding those rigs anyway... so we built ours with the idea of "wouldn't it be cool to use ours on the fly".

we are shooting a feature with it in july. so hopefully that will too, teach us more about what it is actually capable of and if it's a viable solution to a wider range of applications.

i guess those 4 years we all had at RPI did account for something. :) engineers at work!

:)

[Guest]

Well, screw it. I ordered a plain matte Beattie intenscreen for my 6 X 4.5 Bronica. I am not worried about the 2.8 speed because I am getting the entire frame in focus without an achromat and the intenscreen should give me 2 1/2 stops more of light. I have a crappy old gridded stock focusing screen right now, but I fed the image right to my television from the DVX100 and I was encouraged because I saw no grain on a huge t.v. I'm interested to see how many stops down I can go. But I saw a lot of dust. And a lot of diffusion. So, I hope this works out. Like I said before, I'm a photographer so if it doesn't I'll still have a medium format camera and a nice, new, expensive focusing screen. ;) Best- Mike

[araujofh]

Hi Kyle,

I own the DVX100AE, not the classic one.
Do you have the instructions on how to build one, or you are going to make it a commercial thing?

All the best

Fidel.

[kyle_doris]

sup bro.

the honest to god answer to that is -- i just don't know. if it ever went 'commercial' it would just simply be for the guys on this forum and it wouldn't exceed 500 bucks, simply a small profit to pay for the movie we are making with it (which at this point is costing us 16,000 out of pocket).

but the truth is... until we shoot with it for this project and i'm satistfied with its results, we're not gonna go that route. so i'm content with just waiting for now and seeing if it does what we want it to do. and i can give you an exact date on when we'll make that call... July 19th to be exact; the day after we are done shooting.

so commercial, chances are, no. but, the genius behind it... you never know. he's always thinking of new ideas. we had a dealine though to get it working for our project so we had to forego some of the various bells and whistles we would like to have in it. for instance -- optically inverted image. portablity was more important to us then inverted image.

the list goes on. more testing needs to be done. and even still, only guys like the ones on this board who know what they are doing would really get anything out of it. it's not a point and shoot.

[araujofh]

Hi Kyle,

That sounds fair enough.
Well good luck with the shooting and hope that everything turns out good.

All the best and I am waiting for the 19th of july to come.

Fidel.

[araujofh]

Just a quick question. What if it doesn't turn out good? Don't you think that $16k for an experimental project is a hell of a lot of money? Why didn't you try it on a short film first? Have you done any serious tests with it before you actually started shooting the film?

All the best

Fidel.

[kyle_doris]

well, we were going to make this film regaurdless of whether or not we could have gotten the mini35 homebrew to work. actually, we started working on our mini35 adapter in late august 2003, a few weeks before Agus dropped his post (hehe).

our idea at the time was... lets try to get a working one ourselves and if it doesn't happen create a contingency budget in our plans to account for the rental of a mini35 for the week of shooting. luckily we were able to get a working one, because truth be told i'm very happy we were able to purchase a few high quality items with that extra cash.

the idea we had for this movie started two years ago, very much a team effort from many different places, so i can't say the project itself is entirely considered by us as 'expierimental', and it certainly didn't orginate from the mini35 project. the mini35 project was simply one aspect of the bigger picture... and the way the money has been dispursed over 5-6 people, it wasn't a GIGANTIC investment per person, just a large one on the whole.

we've done serious tests all throughout the making of the device. the thing with these types of rigs is... the only real way to find out if they work right is to test test test.

once we are in post production, i think we'll have a lot more time to consider the possibilities of the device. i'm very much interested (once we have time) in making one that conforms to my friends ultra light canon lenses. to me that would seem hot. all in due time.

[Nimpsy]

To all DVX owners, got an email from the guys at movietube.com. The Mini35 competitor that is supposedly "coming soon", and they gave me a price breakdown:

- MOVIEtube Pro will be 14500.00 Euro. MOVIEtube LT about 7500.00 Euro. -

I don't know the exchange, but it will be a shitload more than the Mini35! So much for competition.

In other words, I can't wait til July 19th for Kyle Doris to drop it like it's hot ;D

[araujofh]

Hi Kyle,

You are right. Test! test! test!

Hope it all turns out all right.

As for the movietube thing, I don't think many people are going to buy it. Unless it turns out to be better than the mini35.

Anyway, I'll just wait for the options. If the home made isn't satisfactory, then I guess I'll go the mini35 root.

Anyway, all the best

Fidel.

[Guest]

Guys,
The medium format totally works. I have the p+s technik demo tape and this looks as good as anything on there. My biggest concern is building a proper rig to keep dust out because these focus screens are nearly impossible to safely clean. -Mike

[araujofh]

Hi Mike,

Are you talking about building a rig for the home made or the p+s technik one?

All the best

Fidel.

[Guest]

I built it. It's done. Bronica ETR 6 X 4.5 Medium format camera. Beattie intenscreen. It's mounted on a plate. An "Israeli arm" is what the DVX100 is mounted to, pointing down at a 90 degree angle shooting directly into the focus screen. The picture rocks. The rig has weight to it though. I'm going to look for a solid tripod. No more of this dinky Vivitar crap. ;)
You could save a lot more money than I did, but I literally have no time with my other endeavors to machine stuff and grind. I barely sleep. So here's the cost...(and it's a lot cheaper than the P+S Technik)
Bronica ETR w/ 75mm 2.8 lens- $300.00 at a used camera shop, but ebay is good too.
Beattie intenscreen- $175.00
Israeli arm, Flash shoe, Mounting plate 5" x4" x5"/16" Cheese- $229.90
Total= $704.90
I still need a 72mm lens hood that will keep the dust away. You do not want to get dust on that screen!
There you go. Money? Yep. Good picture? Yep.
Problems...of course you didn't think there were none, did you?
;) Availability of lenses is rare, I'm talking used.
If I could get a 50mm and a 150, I'd be set.
Cost. Not the most cost effective, but hopefully a good directors reel will make up for this ultimately. I mean, its not like I'm out spending my money on booze. You could always grind your own glass, but the Beattie is bright. Gives you 2 and a half stops.
Finally, weight will be an issue for those that like light cameras. For me, it's a good workout. I don't know if I'll feel that way after 70 takes. I still don't know how to post a pic in this thread, or I would. Best- Mike

[Guest]

Hey Mike good job. If you ever find time to work on it a bit more I would just duplicate the parts that are doing something for you. In other words simplify and make the rig look pro and light weight in the process. Lens, GG, Housing. Done. No need to mount the camera ackwardly. Also think about some type of lens hood with a UV filter attached to it. The hood alone wont be good enough because the dust will get in there whenever you take off your camera. You need to make it impossible for dust to ever get back in there and by having a UV filter far away from your GG any dust on the UV will be totally out of focus and unseen.

So are you framing the ENTIRE medium format GG with your video camera or part of it? Did you see any type of condenser in your camera when you took it apart?

Alright good luck to you. I cant wait to see your reel.

-Brett Erskine
www.CinematographerReels.com

[Guest]

Hey guys,
Listen, talk me through how to post a picture on this thread and I'll post the setup. Best- Mike

[joachim]

just hit reply and in the YABBC-tags bar klick on the fourth from left icon in the lower row (insert image)

[Taylor Moore]

Mike,
If your stll having problems putting a image up send it to me and i can host...very excited to see this rig and it's results...

[araujofh]

Yep, I am dying to see some grabs.

Also, if possible a tutorial on how to put it together.

All the best

Fidel.

[Guest]

Alright fellas,
For some reason, it's not letting me post, so...I e-mailed some pics to Taylor so he can post them. When I shoot some gome test footage, I'll e-mail it to him as well to post. Best- Mike

[Guest]

I meant to say ;) when I shoot some good test footage, it will be posted. But I can assure you, the image is awesome. I tapped it right into my big screen t.v. and it rocked. Very filmic. Best- Mike

[Nimpsy]

Yo Mike... Post da shots already! :'(

Sorry bout that, just excited :D

[Guest]

hey guys,
I e-mailed to both Taylor and Fidel because for some reason it's not letting me post, so if one of you guys could post them, that would be great. Best- Mike

[Taylor Moore]

Medium Format Adapter Video and Pix

Here's Mikes Video and pix. Sorry about the delay...my computer blew up.

www.moorefilms.com/mvid.htm

[Guest]

Hope you guys like the rig (and my aparment) ! The quicktime footage is TOTALLY uncorrected. I wish I had a person here to shoot, but I didn't so I shot myself. I put a film curve filter on it in FCP and I thought I was in "Seven." I expected Morgan Freeman to come around the corner.:)
Things to consider about a Medium Format Adpater... (good and bad)
1. That Israeli arm, though expensive, adjusts to any freakin' position you need, which is very cool for time, tweaks, and adjustments.
2. The Beattie Intenscreen, though expensive, gives 2 and a 1/2 more stops light with medium format, which is awesome. They have a website if you need the literature.
3. No grain. Even stopped down a bit.
4. The availability of Bronica lenses stinks, but I just found a place in L.A. that rents them for my camera for the weekend for $25.00. Honestly, I know we all like to own our stuff, but renting one of these lenses is a lot better than paying $2000.00.
5. Make sure the medium format camera you choose doesn't have any obstructions of the focus screen when you pull off the viewfinder, e.g. some of the newer Mamiya models have their shutter speed adjustment awful close.
6. Some of the models ( not Bronica) have lens-to body-adapters where you can use other types of lenses.
7. I had a friend get a whole Hasselblad system on ebay for $500.00.
8. You can't see it, but I'm using Gaffer's tape underneath my 72 mm rubber lens hood to keep access light out. I think a 72mm. metal wideangle with a metal plate fused underneath with a square opening the shape of a focus screen would be adequate, but I'm not a machiner.
Bellows would be ideal, but pricey. You must keep dust off that $170.00 screen or I'll kill you. Just kidding. But keep the dust off.
9. Same principles as the very talented filmmakers at marlathemovie.com. Go to there bonus section and download their .pdf "just the facts." It was the quality of their footage and their willingness to share their techniques that got me going here.
Now I have to whip out Movie Magic Screenwriter and get to writing so I can field test this rig. Best-Mike

[Barry_Green]

Gents, that looks absurd - ;D *Which is why I love it! *The quicktime footage looks much sharper than I'm used to seeing from the Agus rigs. *Any chance you could post the original DV of that at full resolution? *I'd love to see the "perma-grain" situation, as Kyle calls it, and see how this camera combo deals with it...

What's the 'Z' setting when you're plugged into that rig? And did you need any macro adapters?

[kyle_doris]

hey guys, anyone know where i can get the isreali arm for MUCH LESS then like 140 bucks.

for a completely unrelated issue, i need a way to flip my 7" pan LCD for use with the Sandbo 35 and i think it's redic to pay 140 for the arm...

[Guest]

Barry,
There is no need for an achromat. I was a little hasty to get some test footage down, so you can notice a tiny bit of vignetting on the left corner. Also, the screen must be kept clean. I don't think lens cleaner is what you clean it with as you can get permanent smudges. So, that said, there are a couple black specs on the screen. Again, my hastiness. I'm not sure how to send something totally uncompressed. Should I export it as an .avi? I'd like you guys to get a real good look at the footage. For some reason, I can't post any attachments here. The medium format camera was a 75mm lens open at a 2.8.
Best- Mike

[Guest]

Im really impressed with your results! I agree - the footage looks sharper and less diffused than what I've seen from other 35mm set ups. I dont know if its the screen or the larger size but Im guessing its a bit of both. As I understand it those Beattie Bright screens are basically gg on one side and a fresnel lens pattern on the other. Can you confirm this? The reason why I ask is because fresnels were being avoided in 35mm adapters because you could make out the ring pattern of the fresnel lens in the footage (not to mention their inferior optical quality). Can you see it? Try shooting into the sun or just off angle to it to really see if its a problem. Would you please post some frame grabs at 720 X 480 with no compression. Also you say the Beattie screen is 2 1/2 stops brighter? Can you confirm this because most standard GG eats up about this much light and its hard to believe that these screens loose little more than a 1/2 stop of light. Shoot a grey card full frame with and with out your medium format adapter. Put it on auto exposure and write down the two f stop numbers. But dont forget to factor in that your medium format lens is a f2.8 and the DVX100 is a f1.7. Then again your probably zooming all of the way in so that means your at 2.8 on the DVX100 as well. Anyways if you have the time to check these things it would really help us out. Thanks for your post.

Brett Erskine
www.CinematographerReels.com

[Zoomforce]

wholly shit.. very nice mike. Looks like we are getting there.

and as for where to get the arm.. should be able to find something here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=breadCrumb&A=search&Q=&ci=1351

[Chenopup]

Whoa, Mike.

I've never been so giddy over a CU with rackfocus. That looked so damn good!

Definately looking forward to more frame grabs as you get them.

Mike

[boston]

Hi Guys:

I am amazed by the innovative approaches to the Mini35 problem for DVX100A. I would like to get help from or collaborate with someone in Boston area in building a professional adapter for the DVX100A. The thing is, I do have a state-of-the-art machine shop, fully staffed (for a whole different reason altogether); but I am relatively new to DV. If there is anyone in Boston or the greater Boston area with the optics knowhow, I would love to get some advice/help.

Thanks so much.
Raj

[Guest]

Hey fellas,
I'm glad you like the rig. As soon as I get the time I'll do some more footage. I'm really excited about the results and its relatively easy to rig. Brett, on the Beattie Intenscreen website, they describe how they achieve more light. It has to do with the ridges in the ground glass and how that works for the fresnel. But it is really brighter. With 35mm though, you may not gain as many stops. Best-Mike

[mikecall]

nice. shopping list just grew.


good to see other insomniacs sharing ideas!

[Taylor Moore]

Here is a uncompressed tiff file from Mikes Adapter. Large File.

www.moorefilms.com/Seq.tif

Guys what would be the best way to post a 5 second uncompressed QT file? Or do a DivX file?

[Guest]

God, my skin looks like shit. ;D mike

[Barry_Green]

You don't want to use either DIVX or uncompressed, you want to get the raw DV file, straight from the camera. Uncompressed will just waste space (a lot of it), and DIVX will compromise the perma-grain issue that we're trying to see.

So what we'd like to see (what I'd like to see, at least) is a 5- or 10-second DV .avi or .mov, straight from the camera, no processing at all...

[kyle_doris]

the real way to find out how this works is to take the camera outside during the day and shoot some footage and get a nice pan. then post an uncompressed file. if you get no perma grain on that test, you are golden.

cheers

[Guest]

Honestly, I don't know how to take a dv file right from the camera, other than importing and exporting as a file, so Barry could you walk me through what you're referring to and then I send Taylor the file to post. I'll do the testing you guys are referring to if you want, just give me a few days because I'm in the middle of another project and my time is limited.
Best-Mike

[David Jimerson]

I think Barry just means a raw captured clip, no processing. Use your capture program and then go straight into your capture folder and pull out the .avi.

[Chenopup]

at an average of 3.5mb per second, you'll end up with a file roughly 15 - 30 megs (5 to 10 seconds in length). Capture to a folder, take that file and upload.

mike

[Encheval]

Mike you really did it !
As a matter of fact i was already working on a similar idea since i saw the Marla rig. I use an old Kiev88 so far but i had to stop reserches for a while (went to shoot some stuff far away from home).

I always though the Intenscreen was a go, but i didn't thought we could achieve it with the DVX without a diopter.

Bt now i will definitely reconsider the all thing. But there's one thng i wonder: How easy/hard/critical..; is the focusing ? do we have to forgot about handheld shots (i know it's gonna be heavy but as far as i'm concern heavy=good, i also plan to use a home modified Stalicam) Will we need a good focus puller with very little hands everytime we shoot with this "Marla MR modified" rig ?

Anyway, thank you for that rig, you rock (and your skin insn't that bad

;D)

Nico

[Guest]

Hey guys,
Tommorow I'm going to set up the rig and do some test footage, both tripod and handheld to really get an accurate idea of what works and doesn't. I played a little in bright areas today and I thought I noticed a minimal amount of perma grain, but I may be wrong. I was filming on thin in the camera so I'm not sure. It still looked very good though. I even popped in my mini35 demo DVD and noticed the same thing I'm refering to in their footage. So my eyes may be playing tricks on me. But I'll let you guys decide. Tommorow test footage. Best-Mike

[Barry_Green]

Yes, what I'm talking about is using a firewire capture program to capture a few seconds straight from the DV tape. Kyle's suggestion of shooting it outdoors, bright areas, with panning, is a great one. Five seconds should be enough to let us know how the grain issue is going to work out.

[araujofh]

Dudes, this thing is getting hot!
Yes, show us some footage from outside and stuff.

All the best

Fidel.

[kyle_doris]

from our tests we've found outdoors the gold standard of how well you are doing. granted, most likely you will always get a certain amount of it. but there are ways of getting almost none depending on your apature.

so if you do some out door stuff, go through all the apatures, this will give us a good idea of how much the system can handle. also ND filters seem to help the perma-grain issue outside ALOT.

[Guest]

Okay,
We are talking a monumental mistake. I followed all the directions on CLEANING the Beattie Intenscreen, and now I have a nice embossed image of the circle of the fresnel in the middle. Looks like a smudge. A smudge that cost $170.00. It's like when you have an ex-girlfriend that you spent a grand on over the course of the holidays. Any ideas on how to salvage this? Best-Mike

[Barry_S]

Mike--what happened *exactly*? Did you get some cleaning fluid trapped in between the fresnel and groundglass sandwich? If so, try carefully removing the screen pieces from the frame, rinse them in distilled water, let them dry, and replace them in the frame.

Howver, if you damaged the fresnel with a solvent cleaner, it's not salvageable. If you damaged the fresnel, maybe Beattie can replace it for less than the cost of a new one. How about trying the groundglass only?

[Guest]

Okay, we may be back in business. There is no removing the fresnel from the ground glass. These things are connected surrounded by a frame. I've repeating the cleaning process with just water and it seems to be working. GDamnit, we're going to get some test footage! And I mean today!!! If I have to die doing it! Its interesting because they say in the directions to use 1 drop dishwashing liquid to 1 cup water, but I think the solution may have been too filmy and the outline of the fresnel became VERY apparent. I will continue with the water until it's gone. I have a patch of grey hair starting. Best-Mike

[Barry_S]

Dishwashing liquid? Geez--those are great directions. Focusing screen frames are usually made of thin aluminum and there is usually a way to pop the pieces out of the frame, but if you're having luck with the water, keep going. I do recommend distilled water, though.

[Guest]

Oh, and I didn't mention that the say to use unscented KLENEXX to wipe and then dry it with. Mike

[Guest]

Guys,
Attempting to clean the Beattie Intenscreen was a major error. There are an intense amount of little things showing up in the screen now. I did some panning in a very bright area and used my ND filters to be able to properly expose. The perma grain is an issue, with panning making it more evident. The real problem is keeping the screen clean, because the perma grain was definitively reduced with the proper use of NDs. It was still there though. Every spec, smudge, etc. that is on my focus screen was visible. For a television it's probably fine but on a movie theatre screen you'd be in trouble. I think this would be less of an issue with a bigger medium format camera. You see, I have a 6X4.5. They make 6X6 and 6X7. So, the screens are even bigger and less prone displaying things on the screen. Best-Mike

[Guest]

Mike Im really impressed with the results of your rig. Looks like your CANT see the rings of the fresnel lens in the footage. The Beattie screen must be made up of finer ridges than a normal fresnel because I could clearly see the rings on other medium format screens. You've got me reconsidering a adapter that uses medium format screens and lenses.

I was hoping to use a fast (f2.0-2.8) 35mm ZOOM lens for my 35mm adapter because switching between prime lenses all the time slow you down and sometimes isnt practical for some projects at all. My only worry now is the fact that most medium format ZOOM lenses are minimum f4 with just a few pricey lens only a half stop faster than that. We're talking major light loss in the end making this adapter unuseable in doors half of the time. F4 also means it that more likely to show grain in the GG. But perhaps this screen is so good you still wont see the grain. If you get a chance - stop down your lens to f4 and see if you can see any grain on a monitor. Let us know.

Also another thing you might want to check is if your focus on the outer edge of the frame vs in the center of the frame. This becomes a issue when you are focusing on a flat object thats TOO close to the front of your lens and from your pictures of your rig it sure looks like that could happen. To check if your having this problem shoot a piece of graph paper. Make sure your camera is filming it perfectly straight on. Now if there is a problem you will notice that the center is in focus while the outside is slightly soft. And if you bring the outside of the image in focus the center becomes soft. This is happening because when the Beattie screen is VERY close to the DVX100's lens the distance between the CCD and the center of the Beattie screen vs. the distance between the CCD and the edge of the Beattie screen is slightly different so focus is different. And when your THAT close and your aperature is WIDE open every-mm-make-a-difference.

So how do you fix this? Simply increase the gap between the Beattie screen and the front of the DVX100 lens. Around a few inches should do it. But if you want to make the gap as small as possible do this: Remove your medium format camera. Frame up the graph paper again with only the DVX100. Make sure your shooting PERFECTLY straight on (Tripod or copy stand works well) and slowly increase the distance between the graph paper and the DVX100 lens. Refocus and check untill the all of the lines in the entire frame is in focus. Thats the sweet spot. Now you have a uncompromising adapter.

-Brett Erskine
Freelance Cinematographer
www.CinematographerReels.com

[Guest]

Okay Mike just so I understand you correctly:

Are you seeing the grain of the Beattie screen AND the dust and dirt that has landed on it or ONLY the dust and dirt and no grain from the screen itself?

Lastly was this a problem before you tried to clean it?

Im trying to determine if your telling us now the the Beattie screen itself shows "perma grain" and thus not good enough to use for our purposes.

[Guest]

I'll tell you what...I don't know. I think that in panning that it is evident, but I think its the smudge of the screen that is making it more apparent. I'm going to find a way to post footage from both so that you all can really evaluate it. Nonetheless, the focusing area is bigger and I think that is what eliminates a lot of the perma grain problem. But not all of it. I'll shoot somemore once I get this screen properly clean. Best-Mike

[Guest]

Well,
I've e-mailed some stuff to Taylor to post when he can. The perma grain is evident during pans and tilts, and much less during static shots. I was using ND's and attempting to keep the exposure at f5.6. Since I cleaned my screen, everything on it is apparent, whereas before I cleaned it, only a black spec here or there was evident, but the permagrain is still visible in bright situations. On the tiff pics that hopefully Taylor can post, you'll see the residual grain in the brighter areas of the picture. I thought I had a solid thing here, but I guess nothing is solid without the proper tests. I'd hate to have to limit most of my shots to just static stuff, but that may be the limitation with this rig. Best-Mike

[Taylor Moore]

Mike Roberts New Video and Uncompressed Stills

www.moorefilms.com/mvid1.htm

[Guest]

No doubt in my mind I screwed up my focusing screen and that had a direct impact on the appearence of residual matter in the film. But who wants to use something THAT sensitive. I mean, I was following the manufacturers instructions on how to clean it and now I'm at a loss. I wasn't experiencing this problem to this degree at all when I first began. I called Beattie, but have not got a response. Best-Mike

[Guest]

Is it reasonable to assume that any magnification of the image will distort my dof? I had a 5x loupe(magnifier and fresnel) which I have fit with a 72mm metal lens hood. Now I can shoot directly down into the image without the ground glass. The problem is that the image is WAY larger than usual and I'm wondering if I'm spinning wheels thinking about getting the appropriate magnifier if my DOF will be ruined. Any advice? Mike

[Guest]

Mike-
Dont bother. You will loose your shallow depth of field if you by pass the GG and just shoot thru the medium format lens. This has been tried many times and doesnt work because it goes against the characteristics of optics.

Now with that said I've heard there is one expeption. The
CLA 35 adapter by Angenieux/Zeiss. This insanely expensive adapter is able to maintain the FOV of 35mm motion picture lenses. It's designed to work with 2/3" chip cameras. Unlike the Canon EOS/XL1 adapter, the CLA optically compresses the 35mm target size down to the size of a 2/3" chip camera. This allows you to have the same FOV as 35mm lenses without the use ground glass. Another benefit of optically compressing the image is you GAIN a incredible 2.5 stops of light that you never had before! Yes you heard right. Your camera will work even better in low light.

But as great as all of that is we are interested in 35mm DOF. This adapter has gone almost completely unnoticed for many years and thus has very little written about it. Thru a personal email to the manufacturer they claimed it maintained the 35mm DOF but Im not so sure even he knew what he was talking about. None of the official written info on the adapter specifically states that it can do that. You would think that if that was true they would mention it - but who knows. My guess is that it doesnt but then again there isnt anything out there that can do what its doing already. A quick look at the optical design shows about a dozen lens elements working together. Far too complex for a home made project but I think its important to take notice because we may be able to apply what we learn from this adapter to making one for 1/3" chip cameras. I know at least we would all like to know if it TRUELY maintains 35mm DOF. Its the last hope of making a adapter WITHOUT ground glass. Anyone else have some offical info on it? Heres the link to the adapter:

http://www.smsprod.com/products/lenses/angenieux4.html

Brett Erskine
www.CinematographerReels.com

[Barry_S]

There are two possibilities here--only two.

1) A mini-35 type system where an image is projected onto a ground glass or other screen. In this case the depth of field (at a given subject distance) will be entirely dependent on the focal length and aperture of the lens projecting the image on the ground glass. If you wanted insanely shallow depth of field you could focus your DVX on the ground glass of an 8x10" view camera with a 400mm lens (which has roughly the same diagonal field of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR.)

2) The second possibility is the attachment of additional lens elements to the DVX lens. This will only accomplish one of three things**---a) increase the focal length of the DVX lens, b) decrease the focal length of the DVX lens, or c) leave the focal length completely unchanged. NONE of these choices will alter the depth of field without changing the focal length (and field of view). Whether you add 1 additional lens element or 100, it will not give you a shallower depth of field for a given angle of view.

The CLA 35 adapter falls into this category--it effectively shortens the focal length of 35mm cine lenses so they produce an equivalent angle of view on 2/3" chip cameras. Just as the focal length is shortened, the depth of field is increased. There's no getting something for nothing :(.

**There is one additional variable you can change--the amount of rectilinear distortion (as with a fisheye lens).

[Barry_Green]

The CLA 35 is not in any way a DOF adapter of some sort.

It is a combination lens mount converter/relay lens (think of it as effectively a rear-mounted wide-angle lens). *According to Michael Bravin, CTO of Band Pro, he tested it and verified that it has no effect on DOF, it delivers the same DOF of any comparable 2/3" lens, except with an upside-down image.
Full post available from Google's cache, here:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1Hcr8vydrYIJ:www.cinematography.net/PLAdaptorForHDCamera.htm+angenieux+cla+35&hl=en

There is also no mention anywhere of it gaining 2.5 stops (or any light, for that matter). *Where does that notion come from?

[Guest]

Thanks for clearing up the DOF issue with the CLA 35.

As far understanding how its possible for a 2.5 fstop INCREASE - think of a (video) projector projecting on a screen at a given size. The image becomes brighter if you zoom in on the lens and focus that image to be even smaller. Same basic concept. I did some research and according to a .pdf on the CLA 35 adapter its only a 1 stop increase. Never the less something to keep in mind. One example of its us could be a adapter with a medium format lens refocused by a lens element to project a 35mm target size instead wont have medium format DOF but, if I have my logic right, should be brighter than before and have the same DOF of 35mm. Anyone want to varify this?

Heres the pdf:
http://www.zeiss.com/C125679B0029303C/EmbedTitelIntern/Inno8e_43/$File/Inno_8e_43.pdf

[Barry_Green]

Well, shiver me timbers.

That does indeed look like an official Zeiss publication, and it does indeed claim that "the speed is raised by more than 1 f-stop".

I still don't get it though. How could it be? I see what you're saying with the projector, but that doesn't seem to apply -- I mean, you're not *creating* light, you're just focusing what light is available. If I'm reading this properly, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a wide-angle adapter would have the same effect, of making the camera "faster", because it's letting more light in and concentrating that field of view on a smaller spot? Yet there's nothing about a wide-angle adapter that increases available light, and (near as I can wrap my head around it) the CLA 35 looks to be basically just a wide-angle type of relay lens...

... so, I don't get it. But there it is, in print... hmmm...

[Alex0607]

Hi All,

I am ordering the intenscreen and hopefully will arrive in a week or two. From what i see with Mike's setup, its really good and I think i made the right choice to get the screen. I don't think there is any other way of a good screen to project the image other than the intenscreen. Movietube's new mini35 setup use a crystalline platic sheet in its setup and they don't vibrate or rotate the screen. So I suppose it has to be versatile and robust.

The other way I suppose to get rig of the perma grains is to vibrate or oscillate the screen. I know this is a topic well discussed but I have just made a very rough setupo at hope using a motor with an eccentric wheel that is connected to a cam shaft connected to the screen and it oscillates perfectly. However, the sound is still there. If i can get the sound level down and shield the sound inside a box, I think i can incorporate the screen in the oscillating system. Since the grains of the intenscreen is very fine, you only need to oscillate the screen at a nominal speed. Say two AA battery as oppose to 9V battery. If you know what I mean. Anyway, Still working on it and hopefully its a success. Will post further details as I get them. Good luck to all.

Alex

[Alex0607]

HI Mike,

Sorry to hear about your intenscreen, May I suggest to sandwich the screen in between to plate glass. This should prevent dust from every falling on the screen. You can easily clean the glass without fear of scratching the screen. I know there are focusing screen out there made of glass as I have seen it in Singapore. That would be a better option to use. I am quite sceptical about spinning the GG as many time I did that, somehow, i manage to scratch the GG accidentally. So all that hardwork down the drain. Vibrating it is the way to go. I think with such a fine grain structure on the screen, it should be possible to get rid of the perma grain and the dusts or scrtches on the screen by slightly oscillating the screen.

Maybe you can do that and salvage your intenscreen screen.

Good luck.

Alex

[Guest]

If you have a intenscreen (or any focusing screen with a fresnel lens built in) and plan on oscillating it you might have a problem....These screens have fresnel lenses that are designed to focus the light to one set point. If you think about it when you make something like that oscillate too wide you'll end up with footage that looks like it as a hot spot in the center again. Make sure your movement is extrememly small to avoid this. This will also help in reducing any possible vibrations of the camera itself and in turn reduce the sound.

Here are some other things that will help produce a oscillating mechanism thats not only quiet but only vibrates the GG and not the camera.

1)Make whats oscillating (the GG and mechanism) balanced as perfectly as possible and as light as possible.

2)To make it alot quieter use large rubber O-rings instead of gears in you mechanism.

3)Mount anything that moves or makes noise on rubber mounts to contain not only sound but vibration

4)Use a housing that is completely enclosed and perhaps even insulated.

5)Always use tiny bearings on moving parts v.s. bushings

6)Find a small electric motor thats runs quiet and smoothly at a speed thats works for the gg, noise, and vibration problems.

Good luck guys.
-Brett Erskine
www.CinematographerReels.com

[Alex0607]

Hi All,

I was reading the camcorderinfo.com website and some of the people there are also discussing about a low cost adaptor and in particular came across a comment by this fellow.

"Hi Jim,

How come you are so upset with P+S and their adapter?
I do not like the price at all, but the "toy" seems well built.
Worth the money? I do not know. The answer is in their
revenue. If there are enough dedicated paying customers
out there to support them, OK.
If not, than maibe there is enough room for alternatives as you
said.
But then again, who would be willing to pay $3,000 for an
alternative (even solving some of the existing problems of
the adapter?) What sort of market is that when people
strugle to get a camera for 3-5k and then, go for an adapter
(another 3k) just for the "film look"?
What sort of production can afford the extra time to pay off
the extra quality? Weddings?OOTQ
Event videography? nope.
To work with those "toys" you need an assistant, follow focus gear, MB, etc.
My question is:
Is there a real market for it??????

Warm regards,
Dan"

You know what? I think there is a market for sure for this product as it can be adapted to any type of DV camcorders via some form of connector specific for each model. I mean, if you want to just shoot video and take advantage of the auto focus and zoom capability of the DV camcorder, you just unhook the adaptor and shoot. And should you require the shallow DOF capability of the adaptor, connect it up to your DV and shoot.

Of coure bear in mind that once the adaptor is hooked on, you lose all the auto zoom and focus of the DV camcorder. But then again, P+S is exactly the same. There is no autofocus on the expensive version either.

There are tonnes of accessories out there like this filter and that filter, lighting, batteries and the list is endless, but why can't there be one low cost adaptor for the mini35. I don't think there is a patent on static GG as this is common knowledge (Vibrated GG is just too complicated to do), however, if some big company can see the potential of this adaptor and build one using a specially made focusing screen as GG, perfect. The adaptor could cost 2k or less.

To tell you the truth, I would rather spend that extra money to buy an accessory like the mini35 adaptor than to spend money buying all that accessories which i hardly would use anyway. Anyone agree???

Anyway, I would love to be the one to tell some accessory big brother to think about designing and manufacturing this thing. Imagine the potential and the profits involved.

Alex

[Alex0607]

Hi All,

I got great news, I just received an email from Beattie intenscreen Australia that they have the screen for Hasselblad 500c medium format camera that has a two piece screen. The fresnel can be separated from the screen. This means no more perma grain.

If anyone is interested to buy it, do specify the requirement and post the email to your respective local Beattie outlet or via email. My closest supplier is Australia.

I can't wait to get the screen and test it out.

Alex

[joelnet]

No doubt in my mind I screwed up my focusing screen and that had a direct impact on the appearence of residual matter in the film. But who wants to use something THAT sensitive.

Hey Mike - I just wanted to say thanks for the idea - and yes, that really stinks about the intenscreen.

I began reading all the Mini35 solutions over at dvinfo.com - and someone there linked to marlamovie and someone else linked to this thread. Whew... you gotta love the Internet - but I must have spent 10+ hours catching up with all the experimenters out there.... starting and stopping myself on different ideas - then I saw your thread.

I have a Mamiya RB67 I was about to dump on eBay... but after reading this I realized it might be ideal for this purpose.

Sure enough, setting up my camera (PD-150) like yours left a pretty good result.

I think I may end up make my own ground glass using a wax solution instead of grinding and try mounting it where the film holder would normally go.

I'm guessing your image is flipped left to right in the viewfinder, right?

I thought I'd just bypass the mirror altogether and shoot straight through the back to my camera. I'd flip the camera upside down and monitor with an external LCD in order to avoid flipping in post.

That's least amount of lenses, mirrors and post processing. Plus you can instantly play back what you've got and enjoy it.

The real magic to this thing is going to be the GG solution. If static doesn't work, then I'll probably try to build a rotating disc or agitation solution.

I'm going to avoid shelling out 200-300 for a Beattie or BrightScreen. Also, I don't see the need to add a convex lens. The image already looks good with no distortion.

Anyway, I just wanted to thank everyone for posting their ideas and let you guys know what I'm thinking about trying.

Suggestions and updates are being welcome. :-)

Oh - and I think anybody who could solve this in a $2k or under product would sell many millions of dollars of them worldwide. These $13k solutions don't make sense with good cameras getting cheaper. You'd sure think both Panasonic and Canon would be tackling this. The XL2 should have shallow DOF, interchangeable lenses, 24fps and HD... even for $10k it would be game over. They'd sell like crazy. Maybe Panny will beat them to it. The 100a sure came out fast.

Joel

[Alex0607]

Hi Joel,

Nice to hear you are another addition to the incraesing fan of mini35 DIY. I am sure the wax solution would be a good way for a GG. However, do bear in mind that the wax GG will probably melt under warm condition and you will have to make the wax layer very very thin. Otherwise, you will not be able to focus sharply on the image projected on the screen.

There have been alot of materials written regarding to vibrate, rotate or just keep the GG static. I think at this point the best solution is to have a static GG. Check out movietube new mini35. You will notice they are using static GG film as their screen.

Anyway, don't want to discourage you, but then again i could be wrong and you will come up with the better solution. Good luck with your endevour.

Alex

[joelnet]

However, do bear in mind that the wax GG will probably melt under warm condition and you will have to make the wax layer very very thin.

You're right - it would have to be high melting point wax, and even then I'd probably have to have several extras around being kept cool. They'd have to be easy to change out. That would be handy for dust anyhow.

The wax idea came from someone who was looking at the moveitube. It (apparently) uses microcrystalline wax - so someone is experimenting with that and I thought I would try it along with a couple other types.

[Guest]

Seriously,
If this issue of appropriate glass could be handled, it would be over. I was so happy with the results I was getting, minus the sensitivity of the ground glass to dust and damage. The perma-grain I really don't think will be a distracting issue with proper use of ND filters. Like Kyle said before, the problem will always be present in some form. I think proper use of light can disguise it and I think the Intenscreen produces a great picture. But shit, one spec of black, you try and clean it, and you're screwed. I wish I was more handy. I'd love to figure out how to oscillate it, but I really don't know where to start. Oscillating would probably remove any indication of imperfection. I think the Movietube is total crap. There has been no footage what-so-ever. I know these guys are running into problems. I swear, I'd be happy with 2/3 inch chips in an under $5,000.00 camera. Maybe even 1 2/3 inch CMOS chip. ;)

[Guest]

I'll be posting my oscillating adapter soon. It follows the current methods that P+S Technik uses.

The basic idea behind oscillating something is mounting it to at least two off set arms.

[joelnet]

Great - very curious to see your oscillating idea Brett. How did you handle the GG?

Joel

[Barry_S]

Some of you may be interested in this proposal.

http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=Links;action=display;num=1089172736

[jdk2man]

[quote author=Kyle Doris link=board=Links;num=1088290017;start=270#278 date=06/22/04 at 00:18:52]sup bro.

but the truth is... until we shoot with it for this project and i'm satistfied with its results, we're not gonna go that route. so i'm content with just waiting for now and seeing if it does what we want it to do. and i can give you an exact date on when we'll make that call... July 19th to be exact; the day after we are done shooting.

quote]

Any new news on this?

Mark

[crit_flick]

Has anyone else been watching this (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=f6d89b9e218a1f200fae083ae85bb1c8& threadid=27433&perpage=15&pagenumber=1
) thread evolve?

Sounds very simple, renders nice results and most importantly, its cheap! I'm thinking of giving it a shot in attempts to create a static version rather than my (while an ingenious idea) clunky Agus. But I thought I'd see if there are any DVX users who have tried it.

Jon

[redrock]

I've done it and it's amazing. I did the rotating version. I'll post some pics this weekend.

[hvpz]

I'm waiting your post with a lot of impatience

:)

[firre]

have you ever heard about bose screen ?

http://www.stabitech.nl/Bosscreen.htm

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/gg.html

[redrock]

Okay, here they are.

I'm using some cheap etched 'look' vinyl stuck to a CD as a ground glass. After looking at the footage a few weeks later, I may try to hunt down a better DCX lens.

This cap was from a video taken around 8PM.

I'm happy though!

If jarrod would ever post the info on the new formatt matte box (hint,hint), I'll modify my rail design to accomodate it. Until then, I'll finish the rest of my jibs, dollys, etc...

http://www.sunrushmusic.com/mini35_cap1.jpg
http://www.sunrushmusic.com/mini35_cap2.jpg

http://www.sunrushmusic.com/mini351.jpg

[Anhar_Miah]

wow, no hot spots no vignatting!! :o

whats it like in terms of handling? like you have to get your hand AROUND the box to operate the lens

[redrock]

Simple really.
The caps are probably a bit out of focus because I was using the dvx lcd (upside down). I'd normally use a field monitor. I'm in the process of hunting down a follow focus. I also just bought a canon lens with and ~80mm filter size that's stationary. So I should be able to mount up that formatt matte box.

[Brett_Erskine]

Good work! What material did you use for your casing?

Correct me if Im wrong but after looking at your frame grabs you seem to have a small issue with keeping things sharp near the edge of frame. If so dont worry there is a simple fix for this. Increase the gap between the DVX's lens and the GG just a little bit. Right now your so close to the GG that the camera cant keep the whole field of the GG in focus at one time. This happens because the difference between the center of the GG and the CCD vs the distance between the outer edge of the GG and the CCD is slightly different. Throw up a few more empty filter rings in there to make up the gap and your back in business. Good luck.

-Brett Erskine

[firre]

As you know picture after all will be mirrored...
So, which lcd/tft monitor do i have to choose ?

lcd should have function to flip picture horizontal and vertical, easy to attach to the camera, And lighweight too...

so any ideas what do i have to buy?

[Brett_Erskine]

I was thinking about going the same route with the LCD but in case you didnt know yet you can actually trick the LCD to flip its image by putting a small magnet right next to the LCD's pivot point. You will be able to trigger the internal switch that is normally used to flip the image when you rotate the LCD to point the other way. Careful not to use a magnet too strong as it may have a negative effect on your DV tape and perhaps even other electronics in the camera.

-Brett Erskine

[redrock]

Hey Brett,
Thanks for the response. I'm using a black plastic box.

Here's my setup:
Canon->GG->DCX->Diopter->DVX

Where should I add the distance?

Thanks again for your response!

[redrock]

Firre,
Any LCD will work. Just rotate it upside down.

[firre]

redreock:

yes, but i'd like to attach it on the lef side camera[that's where is now original lcd of the camera], so it have to has special mounting.... good to change size and resolution of this lcd to about 7". But i consider that you have hoose your favorite lcd or you make some tests and you think that this is the best lcd because:......

Brett_Erskine:

Do you know other techniques to rotate picture on lcd by some electronics changes ?

[Brett_Erskine]

Sure you could always open up the DVX and find the switch I mentioned then wire it up to be triggered from outside the camera. Other than that you have to either buy a monitor that can electronically flip its image (car sunvisor screens) or just simply mount upside down.

[firre]

this one :
http://mp3playerstore.com/stuff_you_need/special/headrest-7.htm

have:
-Left-Right Picture Switch
-Up-Down Picture Switch

cost:199$

[Guest]

Redrock-
To finally answer your question:
Put the gap somewhere between the GG and the DVX100's lens. Experiment to find out exactly where works best on your particular setup.

[redrock]

Brett,
First, thanks for your response!

I think the flair has something to do with the DCX lens. What do you think about its placement?

Thank again!

[Guest]

First of all there are a huge number of variables in determining where to put all of elements but if possible I would try and put the DCX lens on the other side (the side with the film lens)of the GG. Putting it here means one less element to worry about getting dust on. Generally its best to keep the condenser lens as close to the GG as possible to avoid any chroma abberations.

[redrock]

I'll give it a try!

[Ted Ramasola]

Hey guys i'm about to test tomorrow my DIY adapter based on rotating GG, but I'm attaching my medium format lenses from Mamiya 645. it casts a bigger image on the ground glass compared with 35mm. I'll post results when I'm done tom. (will someone help me how? the posting instructions are "complicated" for poor ol'me).

Wish me luck.

[Ted Ramasola]

I've done it guys. Finally finished the main construction part of the adapter. The extension cylinders for connecting to the dvx is still temporary until I can fix its distance to the adapter box. I've tested and calibrated the MAMIYA SEKOR 80mm lens for focusing up to infinity and DOF. -and I must say the results are worth the effort! The lens I tested has a max opening of 1.9 giving me a shallow DOF. Racking focus gave results I could never achieve with the built in lens. I'm cleaning up the wires today and continue to test.
I would like to share my test and design with you guys, please tell me how to post pics or footage.