Home Made Mini 35 Wow!!!

[Taylor Moore]

Here is a link to my site showing a Mock up of a Homemade mini35 rig by Agus Casse. I had photoshop'd it to work on a DVX 100. Thanks to Anhar_Miah for finding this!!!

http://www.moorefilms.com/mini35mockupa.htm

Here is the link to Agus forums form for the Homemade Mini 35
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=fd117f44b6710061c8fa8ca1b78cc7f4& threadid=17195&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

[Anhar_Miah]

;D
Talyor dude, we gotta get this thing to work, and i want to build like a proper version using metal not crappy cardboard, it can be done, but for now the cardoard version can be used for prototype reasons, once perfected it will be a F*cking Kick in the teeth for P+$ tecSh*T he he :D

anyone out there wanna try?
if anyone builts one please post some results !

[Taylor Moore]

For sure. My liability is I could hurt myself with a powertool.
Any solid builder here?

[Martin]

OH MY.

You won't believe it, but I'll say it anyway - Earlier today I saw Barry_Green's 'DVX100 with mini35 adapter' thread and thought..."what if I made one specifically produced for the DVX100 and NOT the XLS1? ...and saved myself $7k" ...and guess what thread pops up...

I'm definately going to give it a try. In-fact, I'll do a proper job. This IS worth the time and effort.

Now accepting pre-orders for Christmas. (Yeah, right) I'm not a professional creator of these kind of things, but I'm not a newbie either. Of course, I'll let you know my progress so we can all benefit.

If anyone else decides to give this a try, good luck, and remember...Don't be scared to EXPERIMENT!

[Taylor Moore]

Right on Martin, please keep us informed of your progress.

[qazwsx]

Here are my results with the VX2000 using Agus' method. I am currently trying to find parts to make it for the larger lens of the DVX.

http://infrastructuredv.com/g35d/

[Taylor Moore]

Looks good. My question is how is the 35mm lens supported inside? With a longer lens will this be a problem. Also are you using the skuffed cd as the ground glass?

What toy? did you use for the motor to spin the ground glass?

Can hardly wait to see the DVX version and the test results.

[qazwsx]

To support the lens, I used an extra cap )the one that covers the back of the lens when not in use) and just cut a hole in the back. Then to mount the lens (in this case it fits Canon EF lenses) you just insert and turn clockwise to lock. Yeah, I am currently using the sanded CD and the toy was the small motor that powers the rumble in a playstation controller. You can also get them at hobby shops, in electronic component stores like radioshack and in cheap motorized toys.

[Guest]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2968796829&category=29 981&rd=1

I think this may be a way to get better ground glass. It's a 8x10 ground glass used for large format still cameras.

All you have to do is have it cut so it is round, and drill the hole in the center.

Great thread we have here.....

[Taylor Moore]

Here is the latest test of the inventive Agus Casse the fine Brazilian who got all this rolling. The AGUS35.

Check out his latest test sequence shot with single chip Sony TRV 18.
http://altoque.tv/35mmAdapter/moto35mmfilmtest2.mov

Link to the forum.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=0405365b39a58c8992f4d1b105b114d9& threadid=17195&perpage=15&pagenumber=7

[Flintstone]

Why I'll be... There are actual Tim "The Toolman" Taylor equivalents in videography! And contrary to good ol' Tim, this MacGuyver'ed contraption seems to work! :o

[Taylor Moore]

qazwsx
How is the setup going? I am starting mine today as well.
Will do a prototype first for my TRV 7.
Looking forward to seeing your setup for the DVX.

Thanx for the pix.

[Guest]

Does a mini 35 give you a 16:9 aspect or are you having to crop in post?

[Anhar_Miah]

Ryan which one are you talking about, the ACTUAL P+S mini 35, or the AGUS homemade version?

well in either case your filming the PROJECTED image from the lens you attach to your AGUS35?( it doesnt have an offical name yet but i'll just call it Agus 35 for now, you guys will know what i'm talking about :) )

so you if the lens projects a 16:9 image then thats the image you will be trying to capture,

imagine that you take your camera to the cinema and your trying to film the movie well its kinda like that ( well sort of) thats the best way i can explain it

ohh by the way i just watched the motobike clip, DAMN if thats comming from a bog standard miniDV (a low end Sony TRV-thingy) then jusy imagine how well the DVX will do,

lets just say, anyone whose ever moaned about shallow DOF hehe !!

P.S i think Agus mentioned something about, writing a tutorial about how to make one, so ifya keep an eye out for that 2

[Guest]

Hey guys, you probably saw this link from Agus's post.. but just in case you missed it:

http://www.virtualcybervision.com/xl1/ADAPTERS.htm

Scroll down to the bottom to see the actual adapter -- seems like that kind of thing would work.

The only problem is the lack of interchangeable lens on DVX -- means the device would have to be either screw in, or some other method.


-moore

[Barry_Green]

The problem with something like that is that it doesn't make any correction for the different field of view. So you won't get the shallow depth of field of a movie lens. But, on the plus side, it lets you use REAL lenses on the XL1, which overcomes 1 of the biggest gripes about that camera.

[Anhar_Miah]

The problem with something like that is that it doesn't make any correction for the different field of view.


huh? Barry what are your talking about, you get the shallow depth of field with the AGUS 35, thats the whole point of using this adaptor.

[lobot]

i work at an optical lab and i'm gonna be making my own ground glass with the proper optics. i'm also gonna make the proper housing. basically i'm gonna try and get the imperfections down to zero, like the P+S mini35. also mine will be smaller and more durable than the agus35, and made for the dvx100. i'll post results soon.

[Taylor Moore]

Sounds great lobot. Are you going to deal with inverting the image so it is the correct way up. Please keep us all informed!!!

[Anhar_Miah]

to lobot, if you have a lathe at hand you can also make some 15mm support rod to hold the metal casing in place, now one idea i had was to buy a metal box premaid rather then built on from scratch one such place would be MAPLIN i dont know if ya guys in America have the same company over there but they do worldwide delivery check out there website www.maplin.co.uk

and try and find those empty metal boxes or project boxes you know the ones used to put your homemade PCB's and place nice little knobs and switch on the front, anyway that you minimse the things needed to build, trust me when you start building even simple components may seem simple on paper but in the reaL world you start to run ito problems ,

so make your life easier by not re-inventing the wheel, if one already exists

[Taylor Moore]

Lobot,
Yeah it would be really great if it had rails and a baseplate and possibly a support for longer lenses that can come off the rails.
Then there's the focus puller attachment.

[lobot]

i will keep the suggestions in mind. i'm thinking of putting a potentiometer on there to manually adjust the speed of the ground glass, to control the amount of grain in the image. i'm not sure if this would be useful.

once the parts are working good i think the housing will be the easy part. at the moment i only have a 50mm prime so i'm not sure yet what i'm gonna do in terms of lens switchability.

[Taylor Moore]

Lens switchability. I remember in my stills days that there used to be a conversion adapter say like from a Canon to Nikon. It would be great to have something like that installed so all you do is swap out the lens and put on a different one.

Pentax lens are good, and inexpensive.

[Guest]

Ok fellas... call me stupid, but what is the point/benefit/use of this adaptor. Is it to acheive a shallow DOF? Or does it do something else...

[Barry_Green]

huh? Barry what are your talking about, you get the shallow depth of field with the AGUS 35, thats the whole point of using this adaptor.

I wasn't talking about Agus' adapter, I was talking about this one:
http://www.virtualcybervision.com/xl1/ADAPTERS.htm

Someone had mentioned it in the post right above mine. That one does allow you to mount PL lenses, but it makes no attempt at correcting the field of view.

[Taylor Moore]

Hi Fred,
It is to allow shallow depth of field and a variety of different lenses.

[Taylor Moore]

Hey Lobot,
I think the potentiometer is an interesting idea to see what effects can happen with various rpm. ::)

[Barry_Green]

The mini35 includes variable speed settings on the ground glass, I think there's a dial with 1 to 9 marked on it. 1 spins slowly, 9 very fast (obviously). The faster it spins, the more invisible the grain pattern, but also the louder it gets. At speed '9' it's fairly noticeable, it makes a sound similar to an Eclair NPR or a loud CP16/R.

[Taylor Moore]

Barry,

God how I hated the CP 16 at film school. Good thing we were shooting M.O.S.

[lobot]

not sure about the spinning ground glass for the dvx100, because the size of the lens calls for a really large piece of glass. anybody have any success vibrating the glass instead? if so, how did you do it?

[Guest]

Hello folks. I read the postings here all the time and I am attempting to build one of these adapters. I just purchased a used 35mm, 50mm focal length lens, a cheap car toy for the motor for $1.99 (one of those small cars that continuously rollover), the clear CD which I will attempt to make it into ground glass and of course the housing. I am a bit baffled about the fresnel lens and what role it plays in the adapter. I am using the DVX100 and have concerns about the lens size and whether or not I can possible zoom in to get the image. Theoretically if this adapter works for the XL1, then it should work for the DVX being that both use 72mm lens. Also I would appreciate any input on using mirrors to invert the image. Thanks.

[Anhar_Miah]

if you want to invert the image just take apart an old SLR camera trust me it will have all the components you need, including the lens mount, prism and mirrors,

[Guest]

Man if someone gets a homemade version of this working... i'm' first in line with the checkbook... thousands of bucks for the real deal is ridiculous...

[Neil Rowe]

if someone wants to try to build a 35mm adaptor idea that i had(since i wont be trying it for a while yet..no time) i was thinking that you could get a high quality achromatic diopter(lense used for macro or close distance focusing), and just put that on the dvx lens, and focus the dvx directly into the 35mm lense through a short constructed tube of some sort that keeps out the light - im not sure of what sort of weird issues may arise by trying to do it this way, but in quick thought it seems feasable to me.. so if anyones got a diopter lying around, with some 35mm lenses, it might be worth a shot. no moving parts - easy construction- cheaper. if anyones got any additional thoughts on this let me know...

[ckalan1]

My brother in law (he's a machinist) and I are trying to build one of these things. *I will keep you all informed about our progress.

[Martin]

iamloser, I'm currently producing one using this method with a standard magnifying glass. However, I'm losing DOF and I'm getting a slight fish-eye look and not a correctly sized image.

One other issue is the length of the thing I'm making. It's too huge. I'm seeing what lenses I can find on eBay.co.uk to help compact the thing down a bit - you might have better luck on eBay.com.

I'm a bit upset though, when finding optimal placements of the lenses I scratched one of my more expensive filters >:(

[Guest]

I figured where to get my bigger ground glass. Go to a cheap store like walmart or kamart an get a house clock (wall clock)an take it apart. The plastic glass is definatly big enough to work on the dvx100..

Now im looking for a big enough 35mm lense... Does any one know of a working one with the correct size?.... please give me some names of some if you can.. thanks

[Martin]

Just a lil' update on progress. I'm waiting for two more lenses to arrive sometime next week. When I get them, I should be able to use the full image of the lens and a wider FOV (still not sure my method will be able to recreate the true FOV). At the moment I'm using a seriously small FOV. Even so, the DOF on the clock (with a now broken second hand) on the top pic is a good taster. Obviously, again, this is just an example of what I'm getting - without using a ground glass and without using all the lenses I intend to. It's arguable to whether it was worth doing these snaps, but I've got nothing better to do.

http://www.gtanet.com/35mm1.jpg
135mm Lens + magnifying glass (seriously tight incorrect FOV)

http://www.gtanet.com/35mm2.jpg
Magnifying glass (just for the hell of it)

http://www.gtanet.com/35mm3.jpg
Ye Standard Video!

[Neil Rowe]

martin, looks like your having fun!!
gotta love that second hand flaoting around in the bottom there... lol

[Martin]

Oh yeah, and this is what you can get using that magic magnifying glass lens for macro :)

No need to spend silly money on that DVX100 macro lens now :P

http://www.gtanet.com/cap1sony.jpg

[kai]

Nice stuff fellas... hopefully one of you will come up with how to build a field-sturdy version soon so I won't have to drop 8 grand on the "real" thing... :D

[Anhar_Miah]

Hmm..

you guys using magnyfying glass, not good *not* another piece of glass infront og the dvx100!!


i seroiulsy considering just strapping a modifyed SLR onto the DVX,

think about it its already engineered better than anything we could make (maybe) but how to make the view finder bigger? thats the prob,

you see both the SLR and DVX have a bush type connector underneath, there for if you make some kinda fixing rod the at one end attches to the dvx and at the other end attaches ot the SLR that might look an ugly setup but hey it'll work damn it

[Neil Rowe]

...im not using the magnifying glass, but have experimented with one, i actually reccommend using a high quality achromatic diopter for the dvx lense to acheive better results using this method.

[Barry_Green]

You HAVE to use a magnifying diopter of some type, otherwise you can't fill the screen with the image of the projected ground glass. Using a "magnifying glass" seems like a low-quality idea, I'm with IAL that you should have a high-quality achromatic diopter in there (although without testing it, I don't know what strength you'd need). The mini35 includes a magnifying diopter in its DVX version.

[Taylor Moore]

Was just checking the other Mini35/Agus35 forum and some people are really making construction headway on the AGUS35. There was also someone making it for the DVX.

Anybody have a drawing/idea for using the Achromatic Diopter and what power of diopter to use?


Living Large in Houston.

[Neil Rowe]

.well really you should be able to use any power diopter that you want, since they are zoom through, but realistically the lower the power, the longer your device would have to be.. i would say just get the highest power one you can find(i would thinkat least 4+ ) so that you can put the 35mm lense as close to the dvx lense as possible, while staying as zoomed out as possible to allow for more light transmission (less light loss)and a shorter/smaller overall device..

[Barry_Green]

As always, IAMLoser's right on the money. If it's possible to find a higher-magnification diopter, which will allow the DVX's lens to be zoomed out as much as possible, that could buy you AS MUCH AS a full 1.5 f-stops of light! The DVX's lens is f/1.6 at wide-angle, but f/2.8 at full tele.

So obviously some testing is in order. As long as the diopters deliver equal-quality video, I'd say the most powerful would be the best choice. If there's distortion or chromatic aberration, obviously you have to choose the best-quality diopter you can get, but all other things being equal, get the most powerful one you can.

[Multi-Media]

I like the idea of shooting directly into the lens without the ground glass... isn't the 1"X1.5" film plane size way too small for the rather larger front end of the stock DVX lens?
Hey... I'm hopeful!!.... I'm sitting here with a full compliment of NIKON lenses from my multi-image slide show days.
If we all keep germinating on this.. it could happen. I believe!

[Multi-Media]

I realize the need for shooting from a "screen" of some type as opposed to directly thru the lens... and was thinking...

Wait a minute... Instead of ground glass or sandblasting or the like... what about using some FROSTED MILAR film. I've used it for shooting rear projected slides and as a diffuser for shooting HD from 4X5 transparencies. for the thin film I sandwiched it between glass or just taped it to one side of a glass sheet. You might be able to go with a plastic that's thicker and avoid the glass altogether.... Just a thought

[jaronheard]

I am going to trying to make a agus35 for my dvx and I am pretty sure I am just going to use the cd for ground glass for now. I played around to see how it was going to work and determined the need for magnification. So I looked on the internet and figured this was my cheapest/best option for now. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009WBBS/ref%3Dnosim/ecamerasonline-20/104-4047880-0088702
I think I am going to try and build a really nice one so I am going to salvage a broken slr for the lens mount and pentaprism. *Hopefully it will work as well as I think it will! I'll keep everybody posted.

[jaronheard]

And if I stack them I can supposedly get +7 magnification to keep the lens pretty wide for less light loss. This should be cool!

[Guest]

Hey Jaronheard, please keep us posted on your results. Im also trying to make one for my DVX100 also. Thx

[jaronheard]

will do. i am going to look for my brothers broken discman to use for the motor as i read that is the way to go...

[Guest]

Here is the latest test of the inventive Agus Casse the fine Brazilian who got all this rolling. *The AGUS35.

Check out his latest test sequence shot with single chip Sony TRV 18.
http://altoque.tv/35mmAdapter/moto35mmfilmtest2.mov

Link to the forum.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=0405365b39a58c8992f4d1b105b114d9& threadid=17195&perpage=15&pagenumber=7


Hey dude i am not from Brazil, i am from Argentina living in Guatemala !

[Guest]

Hey Agus..... Can you give us some tips on how to make one for the DVX100? I read that Century Optics makes a 3.5x Achromatic Diopter

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/prodv/dvx100/diopters/diopters.htm

Will this work? Also is the sanded cd (ground glass big enough to work for the DVX?

thx for your great invention..........

[Neil Rowe]

for those of you using a cd for the ground glass, ...you might want to try this instead

http://www.craftsetc.com/Store/ShowProduct.aspx?p=111211

just drill a center hole to fit, using a small amount of pressure, and a high speed/small bite tool.. like high speed drill,or dremel/rotary tool. -change the mirrored backing as needed.

there are other sizes available there as well for other projects, but you could probably fins some at your local craft store as well.

[Martin]

I'm so excited, my custom-made acid glass should arrive tomorrow! Apparently the company that are making it for me say it'll be a lot better than grounding glass and won't need spinning - we shall see!

Oh and btw, I still haven't got the last macro lens I need... Hopefully it'll come tomorrow or Monday.

[Taylor Moore]

Right on Martin...send pix.

[Martin]

The lens arrived! I tested it briefly before I set off to work, and the lens makes it so that the 35mm projection area is 1:1 with the DVX lens - from what I can see, it's perfect as promised.

Just to clarify; the model I'm making does NOT involve a spinning ground glass. The whole project could be a flop, so I do NOT recommend anyone starts creating it this way before I've finished the project.

I didn't have enough time to check it thoroughly. I'll take a much closer look when I get back this evening.

I also phoned the company responsible for making the projection glass. It should be ready either later today (in which case I'm off home early ;) ), tomorrow or Monday. Not exactly specific, but I'd rather have them spend longer perfecting it so I'm not complaining.

If the projection glass is no good, I'll start making the base so I can get going with the thing while I make plans to take the spinning ground glass route.

[Anhar_Miah]

No spinning glass, excelent, i've been trying very hard to design a compact version (based around SLR cameras, thus no need to flip) if this GG (ground glass) you say needs no spinning then that would greatly help, the only other choice i have to shaking the ground glass back and forth (connected to a DC motor of course!)

anyway give us updated MartiN! :D

[jaronheard]

what macro lens(es) are you using martin?

[Martin]

http://www.exposuretv.com/showletter.jpg

<Cough> :D

I'm not actually sure what lens I'm using. I've got a friend that works for a company that sorted it out for me. I'll make sure I find out more info on specs, etc.

[Anhar_Miah]

wow, thats clear as anything!, is that the non spinning version or spinning GG?

[kai]

INCREDIBLE

[Anhar_Miah]

Martin please show us the setup your using, this is too good to be real.

[Neil Rowe]

Martin, wondering...is that shot actually from the dvx.. im not seeing the typical black scan lines on the left and right of the frame. there is some fringing on the rh side, but not the typical black of the dvx.

[Anhar_Miah]

HeLLO? any in, seems a long i'm been waiting for Martins response whats going on? please tell me that above pic is nota fake ???

[Martin]

I don't believe it - I take Christmas off to do things people do over Christmas and suddenly I'm getting indirectly accused of posting fake pictures...

That pic is not taken with a ground glass, it's just a snap to show jaronheard the lens in action - note the development of the discussion in the thread. I think it's quite obvious that no ground glass was being used, but I would say that being the one that took the pic :)

iamloser - I've never had the black lines you describe - I guess I've got a lucky DVX or something.

Anyway, with Christmas aside, how is everyone else getting on? I'm still waiting for some type of ground glass, I guess it won't be until sometime next year for me...

[Anhar_Miah]

;D oops, sorry Martin, hey howd your xmas go? i was hoping to relax over the xams hols but been dumped with a ton of Uni course work so...

neway do you have any pics of the setup used to get the above shots? it would be nice to see and also clear any confusions...

Thank again Martin. 8)

[Guest]

Great ideas here..

In another age when one did a film the titles were made at an optical house. I remember the images being projected and filmed off a glass condenser. The operator referred to this as an aerial image. Any thoughts on that approach???

Dunn
Ottawa

[Guest]

hey guyssssssssssss any updates on the DVX Agus 35 adaptor ???????? I have been looking through that DV Info forum ...but i have not seen any tests from DVX ....I am still waiting for a DVX output ......

[Taylor Moore]

For people who are interested.

Here are some tests that 2 guys have done with their Mini 50 on both a SonyVX1000 and a GL2.

http://www.par-t-com.net/media.html

Go to right side of menu.

They look very GOOD.
Great job Spencer and Devin. I am in the process of creating a website with construction and pix showing how these guys built them.

Martin?????

[Ken_Robings]

Did a quick test with our DVX100 and our +2 and +3.5 Achromatic Diopters, in letterbox mode, focusing on the area of a 35 still frame;

+3.5 by itself did not quite fill the frame
With both the +3.5 and the +2, it filled the frame at 20mm (75) at a distance of 3 and half in. from thr front of the diopters, which add 1 and a half in. to the front of the camera.

At 15mm (62) they both (+3.5 & +2) filled the frame at a distance of about one sixteenth of a in.

So it looks like you would need a +5 to work. These diopters are corrected to eliminate color smearing, but you pay for that. The part #'s are 0AD-7235-00 AND 0AD-7220-00, call our dealers for the best price.

One last note, the purpose of moving g.g.-cd-whatever is to simulate the grain effect in film, to get away from the clean "video" look, besides taking adavantage of the shallow d.o.f. of the larger format.

[Taylor Moore]

Right on Ken, just the info I and I'm sure many other people will be interested in.

Thank you for doing the test.
It is great to see good suppliers lurking about. I have you .6 WA and it works great.

[Barry_Green]

So it looks like you would need a +5 to work.


So Ken... while you're playing with 'em, can you use a couple of 3.5's to verify if you can fill the screen with a smaller zoom setting? Because the DVX lens loses 1.5 stops as it zooms in, I'd be interested in seeing what it would take to fill the screen with a 35mm film frame, at the widest possible zoom setting (hopefully retaining f/1.6 or f/1.7).

Thanks!

[liquidigital]

Hey guys,
I frequent the board at 2-pop. First time here. I read that Martin is trying custom acid glass that may not need to spin. What about any grainless ground glass? Is this the same thing? I know that's the concept of the movietube, and there isn't a need for a motor. I also know they use ground glass in large format photography. So would this be a good working protocol...

DVX100- Achromatic diopter- some type of grainless ground glass for projection cut to 72mm-fresnel magnifying lens- 35mm lens.

Is this the right working order? Any comments on exact figures for the diopter, and fresnel.

Thanks, Mike

[Taylor Moore]

A few posts back this is what the Century rep says.
Maybe contact him off-line.

Martin is MIA...must have been a good New Years???



Did a quick test with our DVX100 and our +2 and +3.5 Achromatic Diopters, in letterbox mode, focusing on the area of a 35 still frame;

+3.5 by itself did not quite fill the frame
With both the +3.5 and the +2, it filled the frame at 20mm (75) at a distance of 3 and half in. from thr front of the diopters, which add 1 and a half in. to the front of the camera.

At 15mm (62) they both (+3.5 & +2) filled the frame at a distance of about one sixteenth of a in.

So it looks like you would need a +5 to work. These diopters are corrected to eliminate color smearing, but you pay for that. The part #'s are 0AD-7235-00 AND 0AD-7220-00, call our dealers for the best price.

One last note, the purpose of moving g.g.-cd-whatever is to simulate the grain effect in film, to get away from the clean "video" look, besides taking adavantage of the shallow d.o.f. of the larger format.

[liquidigital]

Hey guys, just some food for thought. Please jump in with any suggestions because I need DOF, but not an $8000.00 bill for a mini35.Do you think there is a neccesity for spinning ground glass? Is this just to capture an image? Theorically, the image would already be present from the 35mm lense, correct? In large format photography, the backs are 5x4 plates of ground glass. There is a product called the Boss Screen by Bromwell which is two plates of glass with wax sandwiched between. No grain, but ground glass nonetheless. Would this eliminate the need for spinning? If I put this plate in a filter holder with a 72mm adapter ring, mounted on two stacked Century Optics achromatic diopters, would this be adequate? Then I could custom build a box to enclose the glass, similiar to the body on the mini35. To keep light out.The front could have a custom mount, perhaps from an old Canon SLR to mount Canon EF lenses. Another question is, would the image be inverted? What's your take on it? Am I missing anything? I greatly appreciate any input. :) Mike

[Taylor Moore]

Hi Mike,
Yes the image would be inverted, but there are LCD monitors that will re-invert the image for you(both horizontally and vertically)...so at least when you are shooting it can be viewed correctly.

The Boss Screen is an interesting idea. I guess the best way would be to try it out and see if it works ::)
Do you have link to the Boss Screen?

There is another form that is working on a static ground glass approach.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18690&perpage=15&pagenu mber=1

[Anhar_Miah]

The image would both be inverted and right to left

[Guest]

Hey guys, just a thought, if you change the back-focus distance you might be able to avoid adding the diopter, thus saving a big chunk of glass...

[liquidigital]

Evidently the Boss Screen won't be practical because the wax is affected by extreme temperatures.
These guys on DVInfo are doing some amazing work coming up with a static adapter, more along the lines of the Movietube. If I'm using an achromatic adapter, perhaps two at +7 as Barry suggested, what thread should I get? Should I get perhaps a 58mm thread and a step down ring? Ken- If you're out there, please help :) I obviously want to avoid vignetting. I'm wondering, as Barry stated earlier if I'd save a stop of light by not being at full telephoto.

[lobot]

i used a sandblaster on my ground glass and it makes for a gorgeous frosted glass - fine, perfectly even grain - good optics.

i'm sure there is a way to shoot without moving the ground glass, but one of the main reasons to spin the ground glass is to simulate the grain effect of film. If you use a grainless frosted glass, you would get the 35mm depth of field, but I think you would lose the grain effect entirely.

[liquidigital]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought the function of the ground glass is to be able to focus on the image. -Mike

[Ken_Robings]

The moving/spinning g.g. is to simulate the random moving pattern of film grain. Yes, you do get the benefit of the reduced d.o.f. without the movement, but the movement is critical if you are trying to duplicate a Mini 35, and the "film look".
I tested the two +3.5's and they vignet until about 8mm (Z34). At that f.l., you do not get close to filling the screen with a 35 still frame. At about 18mm (Z69) you start to fill the frame, in 16:9 mode, at about 57mm from the front of the diopters, which are a total of 35mm thick.

[Taylor Moore]

Ken thanks for your great info. is it possible for you to send me a drawing with the measurements so I can visually get what you are explaining...
I work better with pictures. I can then do a 3D rendered version for the rest of the curious gang to see, and hopefully you will sell a bunch of diopters.

Thanx
taylor@moorefilms.com

[Neil Rowe]

..i just cant help wondering why anyone would want to simulate the "grain" of film. its really a drawback of film.. if film production companies could make a grainless film im sure they would. anyway-35mm has barley any visible grain most of the time anyway..espescially when viewed on a tv in such a small format. do they make a non grain producing version of the adaptor? if your doing a film out, the film will add it own natural grain anyway, and if your sticking to dvd/tv i dont know why you would want to make it look like grainy 16mm rather than crisp 35mm. and if for some odd reason you wanted it to have a little grain why not add it in post. at least then you have options. sorry to rant a little, but i just dont understand the reasoning behind the whole grain producing glass idea. anyone want to clue me in on why this would be considered a positive feature in the mini 35?..

[Taylor Moore]

Hey loser, from what I understand there are 2 diffent ways to build these systems, one being with a moving ground glass and the other being a static ground glass.

The image coming off the 35mm lens has to project onto something...and what most people have found to work best on the cheap side is a frosted CD. Why they spin the GG is to get rid of the static frosting on the GG...make sense.

Another group are working on a system that will use optical prisms to bounce the image to the DVX but there are issues with loss of light.

Ken, does this sound correct?

[Taylor Moore]

There is a new player coming onto the block to take on the Mini35...looks promising with 2 versions. Would use prisms.

http://www.movietube.com/

[Neil Rowe]

- taylor . that was my understanding of why the glass was spinning as well, so that the imperfections, or patterns in the GG would not be apparent in the image, but as i read through this thread i find that people are claiming the spinning GG is also purposed to simulate film grain..and while i dont neccessarily completely agree with this attribute having been planned as a feature of the mini 35, i had to ask why anyone would think it was a positive addition to the adaptor if it had in fact been a been planned. i feel that more or less the end result may have had the effect, and any marking that may or may not be in existance speaking to that particular effect just tries to pass it as a "feature" instead of a flaw.

[Taylor Moore]

Well put Loser, to me GRAIN is not a feature...but the GG is required to create (I think) a backplane to allow for the DOF to work. Yeah I'm not into grain but i sure am into DOF, versus ND's from hell.
Interesting times, in 2 years all the manufactures will have something like this on cameras you will buy at Wallmart for 39.95.
It then all comes back to story...sorry I digress.
I can hardly wait to hear from Martin and his success or failures?
I am going to build a test one for my DV-trv8 to see what issues there are versus trying to create it in my head.
The problem with the DVX is the cost of the anacromatic diopters and the engineering because of the size of the DVX lens. Probally to do it right you will need rails and baseplate etc.

[lobot]

I'm pretty close. I work at an optical lab so I should be able to find the best diopter. Hopefully I will have results soon.
I think it should be said though, that grain is inherent to the film look. Even if you are working with say 50 ASA film, it's extremely sharp and there is no grain in sight, yet it has more grain than a 500 asa film, where you can easily see the grain. With the 50asa, the grains are just smaller. My point is, film looks like film BECAUSE of grain, that's what makes the image. Even if you can't see it, it's there, creating the image, and making an influence on your mind's eye. That's what this mini35 does, and I'm pretty sure it will do it better than a digital/post induced grain. Plus you get the equally or more imporant bonus of true 35mm DOF and angle of view and interchangable lenses, which, if you use SLR lenses, can be quite cheap.

[Taylor Moore]

Lobot...thanx. Please keep us up to date on this. Also please photograph your construction so it can be posted to the masses.

Thanx

[liquidigital]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe the idea of the ground glass is to simulate grain. That isn't even outlined in the features of the mini35. The DOF of 35mm and the angle of view is what the system is for. Ground glass is used in photography to provide a focusing screen and I think it is the same in the case of the mini35. It provides a plane for the image to be projected and focused upon. Just my two cents. :) Mike

[Taylor Moore]

Liquid you got it.
If the ground glass is static you will pick up the inherent texture of the GG. By spinning or vibrating you do not have the texture of the GG. It really has nothing to do with grain.

[Anhar_Miah]

Taylor is on the ball. The spinning is required to remove the texture of the GG. One you try focusing an image onto a GG you will understand!

Try the following get a photo 35mm lens and focus it onto a translucent material or GG if you can get hold of one! then you will see the texture.

[Taylor Moore]

Now here is something really amazing...I guess they were at NAB this year did anyone see it. Is it for real???

http://www.dalsa.com/dc/design/dc_design.asp

[Anhar_Miah]

Sorry, dude thats old news,


I read ages ago, i thing that its actually not a working prototype, as no one has seen any footage from it (YET) ...

But that is the future of digital camera, and CMOS technology (check out kodaks 14mp full sized 35mm CMOS digital camera, its awesome!)

i think HD will becaome a comsumer format within the next three years, heck its already a consumer format(ala jvc hd1) and professional camcorders will have full 35mm sensors,,,

Any way back to this thread mini35, where where we? ;D

[Ken_Robings]

There's a great article in American Cinematographer, April 2002, testing the Mini 35 w/ XL-1 (sorry), with a positive review by Jon Fauer,ASC, who talks about it giving a "film-type look to the DV", and "seeing the grain a little bit in solid color areas".
Alfred Piffel (the P in P+S) also explains in the article that their g.g has a structure (grain-like texture), and if the g.g. is not moving, you will see it. The Mini 35 has two speeds for the g.g. and Alfred says "Some people like to have a little bit of a film-grain effect, so they use a lower speed".
My film roots are showing. Building something to take advantage of the shallow d.o.f and skipping the grain issue is valid, but it is not the same as a Mini 35.

[lobot]

I got mine working! The housing still needs some work but I was able to focus on the ground glass without a diopter for magnification (for a letterboxed image). My enclosure is 4 inches long, so I have about 3 inches between the front of the DVX and the ground glass. I'm at an F2.0, at Z63 and MF16 Macro. Not ideal settings, but now I can start to fine tune everything. I will post some shots once I have some time and light. :D

[Taylor Moore]

Right on Lobot!!!
Is this with the DVX100 or the A?

[lobot]

This is the original DVX100. Let me curb my enthusiasm a bit, I can still see the hot spot/vignetting, so I need to look at some diopters for magnification.

[Guest]

another name for a achromatic diopter is a:

1)apochromatic diopter
2)apochromatic macro lens
3)apochromatic closeup (filter/lens)

Go find it boys! Yee haa!

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions

[Guest]

Hey Taylor (or anyone else for that matter) who sells though LCD screens you were talking about?

For thoughs of us who aren't planing on using the prism/mirror idea were going to need a LCD screen that is:

1)Small/thin enough to be mounted right to the camera
2)Has the ability to flip the image left to right and upside down to right side up top correct for homemade mini35 adapters without prisms
3)*And for a added bonus* vertical picture control to unsqueeze our image when we decide to use TRUE anamorphic (1:2.35) lens

Got some people going with that last one huh. Im having a hell of a time finding it though. Lets all look!

-Brett Erskine

[jonwolf]

Where is a good place to get 35mm lenses online?

[kai]

www.ebay.com

[Barry_Green]

3)*And for a added bonus* vertical picture control to unsqueeze our image when we decide to use TRUE anamorphic (1:2.35) lens
-Brett Erskine

There is no such thing as a 2.35:1 lens. Movie cameras use a lens with a 2:1 anamorphic squeeze, which, when combined with the anamorphic gate aperture of approximately 1.2:1, delivers the current widescreen ratio of 2.39:1.

If you decided to use 2:1 anamorphics on your DVX, you'd get a 2.66:1 aspect ratio (same as "Spartacus" and other early super-widescreen movies) but there's not a television or LCD in the world that will be able to display it properly. It would only be useful for computer videos (think streaming web video) or for a film transfer to an anamorphic print (with a little cropping on the sides you'd get your desired 2.39:1 ratio).

[Guest]

ah damn I lost the original response I just wrote so I'll make this quick.

1)I agree LCD screens only come in 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios. But what I was explaining was the simple trick of taking your incoming anamorphically squeezed signal and just turning the old vertical control knob untill you unsqueeze it to its natural state (2.35, otherwise known as 2.39)

2)This gives you a incredible increase in vertical line resolution, specially if your doing a film out.

3)Im glad you mentioned the 2.66 issue. Your of coarse right but consider both the above benifit and the fact, and perhaps the saving grace, that most tvs will end up cutting alittle off on the sides anyways (due to tv safe area) - when its all said and done your most likely going to end up with a VIEWABLE image closer to 2.35 anyways. And if they happen to play it back on a computer instead you have two options. Either leave it as it is and let them see the whole 2:66 frame or crop and encode for a 2.35 video.

4)Remember that by using the vertical control knob of a monitor your only correcting the image on the extra on board LCD screen for the camera operator to do their job - which is good. On the other hand at the same time your recording to tape a 4:3 full frame/anamorphically squeezed ("damn they look tall") video which will take full advantage of the camera's whole ccd - which is also good. Unsqueeze in post or do a film out. *Whaa-laa*

Hope that helped.

Alright guys. Back to the hunt.

-Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
www.CinematographerReels.com

[Anhar_Miah]

Not to, bring peoples hope down but filming with a LCD ext moni can have some drawbacks ie using in outdoor with bright sunlight, also can not film using viiewfinder people are more comfortable with..

anyway its workabkle idea.

[Taylor Moore]

Hi Brett,
Here is the link to the monitor that will flip H and V.
I don't know anything about them :o
Good or bad.

So Brett are you going to sign on as a DVXuser ;D

[Taylor Moore]

Brett Man...

Here it is

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

[Guest]

Thanks a lot! This seems to be one solution. I'm going to try and find out if this monitor has vertical picture control too. The pros of using a extra on board monitor seem to outweight its cons IF we can find one that has vertical picture control as well for the 35mm anamorphic lens. If not it I might still consider doing the image flip/mirror optically with the prisms. We'll see.

[Guest]

On the subject of achromatic diopters for our homemade Mini35 adapters:

Apparently ACHROMATIC diopters (achromatic doublets) have only two glass elements so in general when it comes to its ability to correct for color aberrations its somewhat lacking. It corrects the focal length for two out of the three main color section of the color spectrum - often leaving the near violet part of the color spectrum uncorrected.

What does this all mean? Your might still have the color bleeding problems with violet. Do test.

On the other hand APOCHROMATIC lenses (apochromatic triplets) add one more glass element into the mix and generally do a lot better job of correcting for all parts of the visual spectrum.

Bottom line - Your more likely to get a much better image from a APOchromat(ic) verses a Achromat(ic).

We'll have to see if Century Optics and other Diopters have this short coming. If so we'll need to find someone that sells fairly large apochromatic lenses. And it may not have to be exactly 72mm if we plan on zooming in with the cameras lens a little bit. How much zoom and how small of a apochromatic lens - I dont know but if I had to make a quick guess I would say at least 58mm and larger.

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com
www.CinematographerReels.com

[Taylor Moore]

Hey Guys,
I have put a rough design and animation showing construction of a DVX35 ;D. Have gotten help from Ken at Century on diopter specs.

http://www.moorefilms.com/dvx35.htm

[jumpcut]

Aloha from Hawaii everyone.
;D
I am interested in building one of these AGUS35 but can't seem to find any info on how to do it on his post. Can anyone lead me to the exact page where these instructions might be on his forum!?!?

[Taylor Moore]

Have a look at my post 3 up from this one.
Here is some help for you.


http://www.thecountrybulletin.com/new_page_14.htm

http://ideaspora.net/agus35/

[lobot]

Taylor/Ken,

I don't think a +5.5 will fill the frame. *I've tried using a +8.75 and I'm still getting vignetting with the DVX iris at 2.0, with the DVX at any distance from the ground glass. *The vignetting is coming from not being able to get tight enough and staying focused on the projected 35mm frame. For this machine, I think you will be keeping your DVX aperture wide open most of the time, making it harder to focus. *I'm looking to get a 4x magnifying glass, which if I'm not mistaken is about a +16 diopter.

[Zoomforce]

I used a +12 diopter and it just fit a 35mm frame... but it didnt look too good.

[lobot]

that corroborates what i'm seeing. for so many diopters, you need an aspheric design, which gives you a wide, flat, undistorted field of view. the achromatic diopters would do the trick but i don't see them at such high powers.

[Zoomforce]

yeah.. my set of diopters are 72mm ones though. I used a 6x6 round diopter a few months ago to do some ECU pickup shots for a production and it looked way better... no noticable distortion, but 6x6 is getting a little large.

[Taylor Moore]

Lobot/Jarred,
Thanks for your input and hard work...
yeah 6x6 is definitly un-ruley to work with.

There has to be a logical way. I will give Ken/Century a call today to see what they think.

I know were close...I think.

[Taylor Moore]

Just got off the phone with Ken at Century and he is on it...should have a formal response soon regarding the diopter combination and power.

[Guest]

Everyone involved in testing different diopters or apochromat triplets should try to see if they can fill the camera's frame with a image of the inside of a film slide.

This very important as its size approximates the target area we're all going for.

Any object bigger wont be a accurate representation of the field of view for a given lens (mm) and more importantly in practice will most likely start to introduce light fall off on the outer edges.

If you can make that work (your my hero) then draw a straight line box the same size of the inside of that slide in black ink on white paper. In that box draw a straight line grid across and down. Photograph this and check for barrel distortion and color bleeding near the corners of the frame.

If there isnt any of both...you just cracked the problem flawlessly.

Before you post your finds to everyone try this test to make sure.

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com
(714)329-1520

[Zoomforce]

brett.. that is exactly what i did... :)

[Ken_Robings]

I've re-tested the Century Achromatic +2 and +3.5 Diopters. What I measured this time was (side to side fit of still 35 frame (1.5:1) in DVX's 4:3 mode (1.33:1));
@20mm f.l.
M.F. 37 (Min. focus)
Distance 4 in.

At 15mm f.l., I did notice barrel distortion, gone by 20mm.
And vignetting at f.l. wider than 8mm.

One large 138mm Achromatic Diopter goes for $2,200.00. We sell them in sets of three. These are the motion picture filmakers standard. I think if achromatic is good enough for them...

[Barry_Green]

But this test isn't really what we need. A 35mm slide is 36 x 24mm, much larger than a frame of movie film. Movie film is 24 x 18mm (with the 1.85:1 extraction area being smaller still, about 22 x 12mm). So you'll need much more magnification to fill the screen with a movie-sized image than you would with a still-sized image. And since we're all interested in recreating the look of movies, you'd need to test again on a 22 x 12mm sized target in order to know what the necessary magnification would be.

[Guest]

Thanks for clearing that up. I didnt realise that the 35mm motion picture camera gate was smaller than the camera gate on a 35mm still camera (the inside demensions of a film slide). So it sounds like if the two types of cameras have slightly different film gate sizes then that means that in a example where a 35mm still lens (lets say 28mm Nikon) is mounted to a 35mm motion picture camera with its smaller gate it will end up cropping that lens' image a bit more and it will appear to be not quiet as wide angle.

So if thats all true, and your measurements are all correct then your right we should be trying to focus on the smaller motion picture gate size (unless of coarse someone plans on ONLY using still lens on their adapter).

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

[Barry_Green]

You are correct, the field of view for a motion picture camera is not as wide as for a still camera.

Still cameras run the film through sideways, using 8 perfs per frame. Motion picture cameras run the film through vertically, using 4 perfs per frame. (and there are other variants as well, such as 3-perf Super185, which runs the film through 3 perfs at a time... and TechniScope, which is a widescreen 2.35:1 format that runs the film through 2 perfs at a time...)

Even though each frame of 35mm film in a movie camera occupies 4 perfs, the frame is cropped substantially, and only about 2.5 perfs worth are actually used -- the rest is wasted. That's why 3-perf became popular in television production -- 25% less film used to get identical image quality.

And shooting Super35 is even more wasteful, just over 2 perfs of film are used, yet the film advances 4 perfs at a time, so you use just over half the available film frame (again, why TechniScope gained a brief measure of popularity in the 70's... it advanced the film 2 perfs at a time, cutting film stock and developing costs in half, while delivering about 95% of the image of Super35...)

So anyway, yes, 35mm movie film frames are much different (and very much smaller, and a different shape) than 35mm slides, which are 36 x 24mm, with a 1.5:1 aspect ratio.

[Taylor Moore]

Thanks Barry for an excellent explaination, I had emailed Ken at Century and I am sure he will be back to us early this week.

I had once rigged up one of the old photography cameras that they use for school pictures, it had a big film back on it.
I wanted to see how many FPS I could get out of it with an intervalometer...about 3-5 fps...ha.
I then got thinking...how the hell am I going to telecine this ??? This was quite a few years ago, I sure now the telecine scanners can do amazing thing. Even change the gate to run the film horizontally. ::)

[Guest]

I would like to share some of my links with everyone. While some will help you solve some of the problems out there others may only serve as a steping stone to a final solution.


GROUND GLASS and ALTERNATVES

(Bosscreens Grainless Glass)
http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/boards.htm

(Prices for Bosscreens)
http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/prices/lenses.htm

(Ground Glass Substitutes)
http://lists.kjsl.com/pipermail/acg/2003-October/000639.html

(Bosscreens)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.schoon.de/bosscreen/bosscreen.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBosscreen%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUT F-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

(Edmunds Optics - Different Types of Ground Glass)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/Browse.cfm?catid=453





DIAOPTERS, MACROS, ACHROMATS and APOCHROMATS

(Tech Spec™ Achromatic Lenses)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1749

(Tech Spec™ Diffraction Limited Large Achromats)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1501

(Commercial Quality Positive Achromatic Lenses)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=2401

(Century Optics Diopters)
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/broadcast/achromatic_diopters/

(OptoSigma Percision Optics and Hardware)
http://www.optosigma.com/miva/merchant.mv

(Cheap/Professional Grade Achromat, doublet, triplet, prisms, etc.)
http://www.surplusshed.com/search.cfm





PRISMS and IMAGE FLIPABLE LCD's

(Tech Spec™ Schmidt Prisms)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?Productid=2430

(Technically Explaination of Different Types of Prisms)
http://www.tecplusplus.de/ManualLu/prisms.htm

(Technically Explaination of Different Types of Prisms - Website 2)
http://topcontechnotes.home.att.net/viewingsystem/page8.html

(OptoSigma Percision Optics and Hardware)
http://www.optosigma.com/miva/merchant.mv

(Dove Prism)
http://www.doveprism.com/

(Cheap/Professional Grade Achromat, doublet, triplet, prisms, etc.)
http://www.surplusshed.com/search.cfm






OTHER

(Flange Focal Distance Table)
http://www.gregssandbox.com/gtech/filmfacts/flange.htm

(C-Mount Fine Thread Focus Tube)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1678

(MovieTube - Commercial contender to P+S Technik Mini35)
http://www.movietube.com/

(Mesmerizier - Rear lens mounted anamorphic optical system)
http://www.kishoptics.com/mesmerizer-mini.html

(Relay Lens Manuel Iris)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1966

(Aspherically Contoured Fresnel Lenses)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?Productid=2039



Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

[Ken_Robings]

I thought one of the reasons to do this on your own was to save money. Putting motion picture lenses (Zeiss/Arri PL mount) does not save money. Using 35mm still lenses does.

The reason the DVX has such shallow depth of field is the small CCD size. The bigger the aperture/CCD, the shallower the d.o.f. Following this logic, the still camera aperture is going to have less d.o.f. than the motion picture aperture (up to Vistavision, which is the same as still frame).

Personally, I would rather buy a few used (older non-auto focus) 35 still lenses (like Pentax) than one Zeiss prime lens. And use the money left over to buy Century's diopters. And some B + W filters.

[Taylor Moore]

For those that are interested there has been an amazing new revision of this device, it operates without a spinning ground glass, and images looks very clean....created by French Canadian Alain Dumais.
This is a far better solution to the mechanical and sound issues of a spinning GG.

Link and pics are here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20408&perpage=15&pagenu mber=1

Awesome Video is being relocated... will be posted soon.

[Taylor Moore]

For those that are interested there has been an amazing new revision of this device, it operates without a spinning ground glass, and images looks very clean....created by French Canadian Alain Dumais.
This is a far better solution to the mechanical and sound issues of a spinning GG.

I have posted assembly pix and videos here:

www.moorefilms.com/aldu35.htm

[Guest]

Heres a test chart for the optical quality of all of our mini35 designs. Any promising designs should be put to this test to know for sure that its working as well as it can.

It tests for:
1)chroma aberration
2)barrel distortion
3)how much grain is apparent from the ground glass

How does it work?

Step 1: Print out the picture of the test chart on high quality glossy photo paper at 300dpi. You'll find a link at:
http://www.cinematographerreels.com/mini35info.htm

Step 2: Measure the image after it prints out. It should measure 24mm x 18mm.

Step 3: Videotape the image with only the diopter lens your using in front of your camera (diopters are also known as macros, closeup filters, achromats and apochromats) and make sure its in focus and that you are filling the viewfinder edge to edge with the image.

Step 4: Post a frame grab from your video here at full resolution (720x480). If you have straight lines in your frame grab and no color blurring then your mini35 system has pasted the test.

Now if you want to check for how much grain can be seen in your ground glass repeat the first 4 steps with your mini35 system put all together including your 35mm lens.

These tests will check, with precision, everything but resolution. You'll need to shoot a professional resolution chart for that. Post that too if you have frame grabs.

Link to mini35 test chart:
http://www.cinematographerreels.com/mini35info.htm

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

[Zoomforce]

back to the drawing board :)

http://www.dvxuser.com/image/35mm.jpg

[Guest]

everyone working on this project rocks me hard. you are all awesome.

oddly enough without any knowledge any of this has been going on, a professional development student (p.d.a. is basically invention/engineering) graduate student has been working on this at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute since early sept. (www.rpi.edu) by request of his filmmaking friend (myself) since mid sept.

i have no idea what his results are as of yet, but it might be a different angle at the whole problem, or it might just come up as not much help, but the prototype is done this week. i'll keep you guys posted if it turns up any new insight.

[lobot]

we are still in the same boat in terms of magnification.

jarred, what were you using above?

i admit it, i am not yet willing to put down $400 for a diopter for my homemade mini35. i am going to try a 4x magnifying glass (16 diopter) which costs $5.

i may be wrong but i think i can see some static grain in the first video, but the prospect of making the mini35 smaller and absolutely silent is fantastic!

[Zoomforce]

oh that wasnt full zoom.. I could fill the frame but I forgot about overscan when I took the grab.

[Guest]

Hey Jarred thanks for posting your test. I noticed chroma distortion in the outer lines of the grid. Are you using a single or double element type of magnifier in front of your camera? What is it called? Double elements most likely will work and a step above that are triple elements which are as optically perfect for this purpose as you can buy.

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

[Zoomforce]

I think that may be lighting you are seeing.. I lit the thing with an LED flashlight balanced at 5600k, and the ambient was tungsten.

Im using a double element, but I have 5 or 6 different diopters so I am sure I can throw another one in there.

[Zoomforce]

alright.. I actually used real photo paper.. threw on another diopter and here she goes. I ixnayed the flashlight to let it just use ambient.

http://www.dvxuser.com/image/35mm2.jpg

[Martin]

Great to see everyone progressing. Sorry I haven't posted since last year, I'm having a few 'new year' problems which isn't giving me much time.

Just letting you know I'm still alive and still very much interested in this project. Unfortunately I'm having to let the DVX100 go for the time being (for sale here (http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX/YaBB.cgi?board=market;action=display;num=107533887 8)) as I need the money to pay a stupid business rates bill I can't afford without seriously crippling my life in general. I'm selling a lot of my gear to keep my business - and life - afloat.

As soon as I have this sorted later in the year I'll be purchasing a replacement DVX.

[Guest]

Hey Jarred I can tell how you lit your first chart. But that wasnt the problem. I was talking about something else in the picture. Look at the horizontal and vertical lines located just on the edge of the frame grab. You'll notice a subtle color bleed/softness in thoughs straight lines that progressively get clearer until its completely gone as you look at the lines in the center of the picture. This is the effect of chroma aberration and if uncorrected it will spoil the quality of your future video projects. When you say you are using more then one element I have a feeling that what you meant by that is that your using more then one single element closeup/macro filter that you have screwed on top of each other to increase their power. Unforunately this wont work for the reason I just stated. What you need is either one or a series of ACHROMATIC filters stacked on top of each other. Whats the difference? Each achromat filter is type of closeup/macro filter that is made up of TWO glass elements that work together to PROPERLY correct for barrel and chroma aberration. These two elements are cemented together and often put into ONE filter ring housing before they are sold. You can stack these filters as well if you need to increase their power. Century Optics is one manufacture that makes them but they have yet to be put to the test with this chart to see if they are TRUELY strong enough for the target area of 24mm x 18mm.

And if your really lucky and find them the best optics for this problem are known as APOCHROMATS. They use THREE elements cemented together in one fliter ring housing for the very best possible optical correction. The verdict is still out on whether these are over kill.

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

[Zoomforce]

lol.. I am aware what chroma aberration is.. Sorry I wasnt clear.. I meant the lighting was less than steller.. which of course, resulted in an aperature problem that created a larger chroma aberration problem. also, I think a perfectly perpendicular arangement would of been better as the Depth is so tight a mm off makes a big difference. I just held everything handheld.

I betcha I could get it right though.. but I am not trying to make one of these things, just saw your test and thought I would spend 5 minutes on it. To go out and buy a Apochromat to make one of these you gotta be nuts.

[Guest]

Nuts? Well maybe for the Century Optics yeah but there are so many others out there just like it that arent directly marketed as a video product (in other words...inexpensive). Take this one for $30 for example > http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l2160d.html

Just one of many achromats they offer (and thats one of their most expensive ones). And there are many other sites that sale more as well. Check out my links I recently posted.

This is a very important piece for thoughs looking to make a full quality adapter and not something noticeable lacking in image quality.

[Zoomforce]

yeah sorry I meant for the Century one.. although you would probally get the best quality from it.

Have you ordered that $30 lens.. I can't believe it would give good results. I really dont have much interest in making one, but I have a feeling you are fully capable of doing it.. I would love to see how it turns out for you.

[Taylor Moore]

Hey Brett,
Thanks for all your input and research on this device...I look forward to your results and if it works I will be building a economical version once the design is locked.

Cheers

[ardo]

Brett, I think I realize how excited you are, heck, we all are, I'm also consumed by the craze in this and other forums, and I don't even have a DVX camera! Having said that, let me save you your 30 bucks: the lens you've pointed out has a focal distance of 360mm. It could make a great objective lens, but it would never make a 7X diopter, which would have its focal length under 1in. Being an achromat isn't everything...

You may want to add some of these sites to your list of bookmarks:

http://www.optics.kth.se/book/ch1/page3/huvudsid3.htm
http://www.howardelectronics.com/scienscope/diopter.html
http://www.oriel.com/down/pdf/09014.pdf

Although I still (technically speaking, of course!) have my Master's in optics & spectroscopy, it's been almost 30 years since, and I have to use these and other links way more often than I'd like to admit. I hope these will help you as well in your quest for a perfect 35mm adapter. Good luck!

[Guest]

Thanks alot! Yeah I knew that was going to be a problem. I just used that as a example of a achromat lens that was both large enough and affordable. What Im looking for is the closest thing to a F1 achromat. For thoughs that dont know a optic with a F1 rating is said to have the same focal length as its own physical diameter. As I understand it- the closer that they are the same the stronger the power of the magnification.

I'll check out your links now and post anything I find.

[Rogue Crew]

Check out the MovieTube!

http://www.movietube.com/

[lobot]

here is my first clip.

http://www.nxflix.net/mini35.html

This is DVX, 24P normal with the Agus/spinning CD type adaptor, normal and telefoto Pentax 35mm still lenses. As you'll see I'm working on some issues, but I thought I'd put it out there.

[Taylor Moore]

Good effort Lobot, can you shoot something exterior to see any arbiration/vignetting issues and with something in the foreground to see the DOF with a possible rack focus.
What make diopters did you use?

[lobot]

yes, i will do that. i'm glad the weekend is here and i can see the sun. :)

i have a 4x/16diopter magnifier. it's not so great. i just wanted to see first what i don't like about it before i step up. in the clip, you can see that i haven't locked it down yet.

[Guest]

Is your +16/4x diopter a single element or achromat which comes as two elements cemented together as one. Where did you get it?

From my test it looks like we need a +16 or greater power diopter if we plan on using motion picture lenses. If we plan on using ONLY 35mm still lenses with our mini35 adapters we should be able to get away with a +13 or greater power achromat diopter.

[Guest]

The DVX is one of the hardest cameras to find a proper diopter for because of both its lens diameter and poor minimum focus distance (dvx100a model most likely does a better job). I've determined I need at least a +16/5x power achromat to see the target area size of 24mm x 18mm. I have only seen this spec in optics for high end loupes, hand held aspheric magnifing lens and microscope lenses. Obviously the microscope lenses are too small to shoot through but perhaps the achromat loupes or a large magnifing lenses like these might do the trick:



http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1784

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=97287&is=REG

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2983326078&category=30 030

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2376274020&category=16 508

http://www.eschenbach.com/catalog/subfamily.asp?18



Now these are all smaller in diameter then 72mm but, to a point, that shouldnt matter because we're most likely zooming in just a little anyways. Hope these help.

[lobot]

I have a single element magnifier. I updated this link for some outdoor shots with rack focus.

http://www.nxflix.net/mini35.html

My magnifier is a bit small but I think anything above a 52mm will do. In this clip, check for color aberration in the snow. My gg is not the greatest either, then again, it's a plastic cd. I am going to try the static route with a glass gg.

[Guest]

Hoya sells +10 two element achromat macro filters that list for $113. They come in 55mm, 52mm, and 49mm sizes and are the single strongest photo marketed macro lens I've ever found and they are chroma aberration free.

[Guest]

Found the Hoya +10 macros here for $67:

http://www.2filter.com/hoya/hoyacloseup07.html

heres some info on them

http://www.camerastore.com/cat_003_hoya/003macro.html

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

[Guest]

As far as whether or not the above Hoya macro lens will work on the DVX with a step down ring - the short answer is you wont know for sure without trying it. I have a DVX and I plan on doing the following to get a better idea if it will work before I buy:

1)A quick referance could be made by grabing anything that measures just under 55mm such as a ruler or another type of filter and hold it in front of the DVX's lens. See if you can zoom thru the filter (or past the 55mm markings in the case of the ruler)

2)For the DVX you'll need a macro lens like the Hoya but more than one stacked on top of each other to make it a total of at least a +13 diopter rating. And if you plan on using 35mm MOTION PICTURE lenses you'll need it all to add up to a +16 or greater. The second macro lens doesnt have to be a +10. Hoya and alot of other companies make +3, +7, etc. But its absolutely necessary that they both are two element achromats.

3)Remember that between the step down ring(s) and the two somewhat thicker Hoya filters stacked on top of each other - it will add a bit more length to the system in front of the lens so you might have to zoom in just a bit more than if you simply had one lens on.

The simple fact that this will add about a $100 to the project is sure to deter some people but for thoughs looking at this adapter as a professional solution and are unwilling to sacrifice a noticeable amount of image sharpness for 35mm DOF the investment is well worth it.

[Guest]

Heres my "PremiereVisions35 adapter" (ha ha or whatever you would call it) design equation:

35mm lens>condensor lens>600+ alum. powder ground glass or better>macro lens (+16 power*)>video camera with on board image flipable LCD

(*for DVX100. May be different power for other cameras)

And if you want to have the image interially optically flip and mirror without the aid of a extra LCD the equation is:

35mm lens>condensor lens>600+ alum. powder ground glass or better>Pechan prism>roof pentaprism>macro lens (+16 power*)>video camera

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com

[Guest]

Where did everyone go...? Well to thoughs working on this project heres some pictures that prove just how good though Hoya +10 achromat diopters are.

http://www.lensmateonline.com/A80macrocomp.html

Look at the the edge to edge clarity even after stacking them to +17. I dont know where everyone is but I hope I made someones day.

-Brett Erskine

[jaronheard]

so i tested my dvx and it could zoom thru a 52mm filter so i think that the hoya +10 lens would be a fine choice for this project. so i am considering ordering that filter but do not know which filter to get to stack on top of it for the +7 macro

[Guest]

Remember it needs to be aprox. +16 or MORE (for the DVX100). With that said Im going to just get two Hoya +10s and stack them. At first this may sound like over kill but remember that the stronger the magnification the less you will have to zoom in on the camera's lens (faster f/stop). Hoya makes them in 55mm too so that will be even easier to clear. They are much less expensive than the Century Optics. And finally stacking two of the same filters PERHAPS might be better because they are optically matched. As you can see from the examples the Hoya filters appear to hold up extremely well to being stacked.

Would of loved to see them offered in a larger size but I think the reason why we cant find them in and outside of the photography industry is because of physical limitation on optical designs. The curve in a diopters glass has a consistant angle of curvature - meaning that if you were to make the lens bigger and bigger in diameter you will eventually end up with a piece of glass in the exact shape of a half sphere. Theres a relationship in optics where one given elements diameter can not be larger than its focal length without unwanted distortion in the curvature of the glass. In other words making the that half sphere more half egg shaped. This may be the very reason why we cant find a 72mm +16 diopter with a very short focal length. Oh well. At least I found one solution.

-Brett

[Taylor Moore]

Sorry Brett and guys, I have recently moved so I can't really communicate well as I won't have my connection for awhile. I am presently typing this at a library. I also threw my back out...
Thanx Brett for your hard work and soon I will be back to help with the DVX problem solving.

[jaronheard]

well i hope those 2 hoyas work out really well i think I will go with that solution as well if it works for you. cant wait to see!

[Guest]

Jared Im real sorry to hear that. Keep us updatd.

For thoughs of us that ARE upright, I expect to see you at the DVX100 meeting tonight. We can finally swap info in person on this project and others. Heres all the info:

http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX/YaBB.cgi?board=nws;action=display;num =1074968073

[Ken_Robings]

We are moving in a couple of weeks, and are having a Schneider filter fire sale, for example;
Ser. 9 Achromatic Diopter (+1,2,3), list US$578.00 ea. is $50.00
72mm to Ser. 9 adapter, $35.00
Sorry, no 72mm filters, but we have 82mm.

[Guest]

Thanks! As great of a deal as that is we would need to stack up quite a bit of the +3 to finally add up to around +16 (for the DVX100) and the internal reflections would really start to add up. Perhaps the Sony and Canon users can benefit from these diopters better than we can...that is unless they make any that are stronger than a +3. If not perhaps, as a optical engineer, you could explain why it seems impossible to find anything more powerful than a +10 (@55mm) and +5 at a larger diameter. Thanks again.

-B

[Guest]

...heres some pictures that prove just how good though Hoya +10 achromat diopters are... Look at the the edge to edge clarity even after stacking them to +17.

It looks to me that they stacked the Tiffen +7 & +10 filters.

[Guest]

Ah your right. I missed that. But the examples showing off the Hoyas look just as good though and they are actually available in up to a 55mm unlink the Tiffens which come no larger than a 37mm.

[enormousapp]

Is this relevant in any way?

...Reverse mounting a 50mm lens on the front of a telephoto lens (using a male-male macro coupling ring, $8-$10 from B & H ) will give you extreme closeups. The 50mm lens is well corrected and acts like a +20 diopter CU lens. Mounted on a 200mm telephoto it will give you 4 times life size. There may be some vignetting depending on the 50mm lens speed (use it wide open). This can be reduced or eliminated by focusing the telephoto lens to minimum distance or by using a short extension tube.
FYI - Also found this site (full of info on the Diopter): http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/diopter.html

[Guest]

Yes. Doing this turns the 50mm lens into a very nice +20 achromat diopter but even at f1.4 the exit aperature isnt physically wide enough for the DVX to look completely through. Perhaps it would work if you added a low power achromat diopter between the reverse mount 50mm lens and lens on the DVX100 but thats a bit much. The two Hoya's seem like a better choice.

Thanks for the link.

[enormousapp]

Brett-

What's your solution for the reversed and flipped image? I've thought (theoretically speaking) if there was a way to attach some sort of apparatus on the outside (to the flip-out LCD) rather than inside "the tube" it might be easier to construct. At least there would seem to be more room to work. I don't know what exactly, but some configuration of a prism and mirror(s). I envision it being no larger than a hood/shade. Of course you'd be bound to use the LCD for viewing and you'd still have to flip the image in post. But that seems like a small price to pay. The main issue is not seeing the image normally while you're shooting.

I just got my Aluminum Oxide today! Now I have to buy some elbow grease. ;)

[Guest]

Well much of this has already been talked about on the DV Info forum but since this is a DVX100 only forum we can talk about the particular need of that camera for this project.

As far as fliping the image it seems extremely difficult to find the prisms we need that can do what we need it to do AND fit in the very small gap between the gg and the Hoya diopters. I hope we do but it likely to add about a $100 or more to the project if not more and if its not of the highest quality its very possible the prisms will make the adapters even more light hungry. Because of these reasons and others Im currently planing on either making a custom mount that will let the camera's existing LCD screen rotate 180 degrees to the side. If I dont do that I'll be using a extra specialty LCD screen mounted to the top of the camera. Im a steadicam operator as well so having a monitor mounted to the top of the camera or counter balanced on the base is a very good idea because you gain the advantage of being able see the screen at all times as you pan extreme right and left. This LCD also has a built in feature that unsqueezes a 2.35 anamorphic image for the operator. Hope that helps.

Brett Erskine

Oh yeah it also flips the image L-R and U-D.

[enormousapp]

You're referring to the Teletest or Transvideo type monitors?

[arkham]

About the flipping image issue, I really don't get why you really don't seem to be willing to take the easiest solution of all: use an external LCD monitor and rotate it 180°. It isn't pretty hard to find an inexpensive high rez calibrated little lcd screen which will do a much better job anyway than the embedded one, isn't it? K.I.S.S. ;D

Anyway, this "flipped image" is a non-issue as far as I am concerned.

[Guest]

Arkham-
Thats what Im planing to do. Take another look at my post.

As far as the 2.35 squeeze monitor, yes I would be using the Transvideo. They are $50/day to rent and would be thrown in the rental package whenever I have a client that wants to shoot on PL anamorphics. I cant afford a set of anamorphics so why buy the monitor to suport them. Any client that has the money to rent those lenses surely will have enough for the Transvideo LCD.

For smaller shots and my own screwing around - I plan on reverse mounting either the cameras own LCD or adding another on the top.

-B

[arkham]

;D

In fact, I was replying to enourmoussapp and all the people out there who are still looking for special prisms and/or fancy mirrors to flip the picture internally or on the external LCD screen. I don't really get why they waste so much energy for a non issue (IMHO).

But you said "Oh yeah it also flips the image L-R and U-D", which, IMHO, implied that these are features to be desired, features we've got to look for, when, in fact, all we have to do is flip an external monitoring lcd screen upside down. *Sure, would we be talking about huge CRT monitoring screens, that could be cumbersome, but tiny little LCD screens, come on! :D

The real issue, IMHO is to try to get the best picture out of a DVX100-DIYmini35 combo: I personaly don't care if it's gonna have to be reversed in post or not.

BTW, Brett, thank you so much for working hard on this topic. I truly appreciate your expertise and your dedication. :)

[Guest]

Thanks. Im glad to see someones still ACTIVE on this thread. Watch everyones going to magically appear again when I post my results from my adapter soon. I can almost hear their "tell me what to buy and not how it works" questions now. Oh well. Human nature. Anyways I know what you mean about issue with fliping the image. Thats why I havent put too much of my efforts into prisms, etc. I can say one thing though. Fliping it in post is going to mean that much more time and space on our hard drives from rendering all of our video. We know by looking at the Movietube and the P+S Technik that there is a way for prisms to work but if these prisms degrade the quality in any way or add too much physical length to the adapter I would rather just do it in post instead.

[enormousapp]

Holy crap! So much for discussion.

At the risk of Arkham's head >:( exploding, please continue to indulge me.

The idea of rotating the LCD until the image flips then having to hold the camera in such a way that you view the LCD upside-down in order to see the image displayed correctly is certainly a way to test. Doesn't seem like a real solution though.

[Guest]

enormousapp-
No of coarse I wouldnt do that. You misunderstood me. Read my post again.

Just flip the LCD upside down only.

[Taylor Moore]

Brett,
Waiting in the trenches here; good point on the additional time and storage required for the flip.

[arkham]

At the risk of Arkham's head * exploding

Bang! Too late: who's gonna clean my skull&brain bits in the office now. *;)

Seriously, I think I didn't express what I meant correctly, for we've got a bit of a misunderstanding here. Please accept my humble apologies.

My idea was to completly forget about the camera's LCD screen, to purchase instead a good quality reasonable sized external monitoring LCD screen, to calibrate it properly and then, to turn it upside down, fix it on top of the camera or on the tripod somewhere, and only use this screen to frame your shoot. That's what I will do anyway! I don't think this will be much more expensive than a complicated prism/mirrors setup, but I'm sure this extra LCD screen solution will be much less time/energy consuming to make IMHO.

Of course, I realise this may not be practical for shooting interviews or documentaries, but I never intended to shoot anything but short-movies with the "DIY mini35"...

[enormousapp]

...Im currently planing on either making a custom mount... Oooooooooooh..."custom mount". Yes, well okay. I was trying to combine what you were saying with the way the LCD is currently mounted.

Alrighty then, please keep us informed if you decide to reconfigure your LCD. And send pics!


My idea was to completly forget about the camera's LCD screen, to purchase instead a good quality reasonable sized external monitoring LCD screen, to calibrate it properly and then, to turn it upside down, fix it on top of the camera or on the tripod somewhere, and only use this screen to frame your shoot.Yes, well I too understand this concept.

I'd also like to say, I'm well aware of ALL the talk on ALL the different forums about this topic. Believe me, I'm not one who's suddenly joined in. I bought my DVX in October 2002! Anywho, I suppose I was searching for something hidden in your posts. Maybe some wacky innovative real solution that hasn't been brought up in the past. I guess I was trying to find something that wasn't there. Then again, maybe I'm just not as smart as you guys.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. ;D

[bena]

Pardon my ignorance.. But with this set up, does one need to move the focus ring on the 35mm lens or move the lens back and forth to focus?

Thanks

[Guest]

Bena check out the threads on DV Info for detailed info.

To quickly answer your questions:
1)Focus using the 35mm lens
2)Set backfocus of the 35mm lens with a adjustable length mini35 adapter housing

-B

[enormousapp]

Alright I admit it - I'm a dumbass. I was away from the forums TOO LONG. I didn't realize how much had been discussed so quickly. The monitor solution was so simple! I'm embarrassed!!

Okay, I think I'm all caught up now. DVInfo has been VERY busy!

Brett, have you settled on what you're going to use as a condenser? And have you gotten your Hoyas in yet?

I'll join in on DVInfo when I start testing.

Thanks.

[kyle_doris]

i'm sorta confused, has anyone been able to make a decent homebrew mini35 adapter for the DVX? if so, has there been any test footage to look at?

i hear all this talk about stuff yet no real examples of any working devices, i myself have someone working on one in upstate ny.

anyone have any test footage of a working DVX/mini35homebrew lying around? i'd love to see it.

[Barry_Green]

I'm asking the same thing... I don't think I've heard of anyone successfully making one for the DVX yet.

Jim Lafferty has posted a nice tutorial on how to build one for his Canon GL, but again, no help for the DVX users yet...

[enormousapp]

As far as I can tell, Brett Erskine is leading the way with the DVX adapter.

Brett?

[Guest]

The Hoyas work great. I just found another company that has +12 achromat diopters but they are around $400 so forget that. I'm still finishing up construction and I'll post as soon as Im done. Im in contact with some optical designers in order to fine tune the my design. The condenser is a plano-convex lens that can be mounted in a filter ring and screwed in to sit right next to the GG. You could also just grind the plano side of the condenser. It would be slightly better quality but if you screw up you have to buy another condenser lens. And to answer your next question...the condensers are available at the links I posted earlier. In fact most of the info has already been posted here and on DVInfo.net. When you shop for your condenser which one you get depends on what macro lens your using and your adapters size between the macro and the GG. What else have you guys found out and working on with your designs? I'd love to hear more.

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

[enormousapp]

Brett-
I'm trying to stay as close to your lead as possible. I ordered the same +10 Hoyas (on back order) and a 72-55 stepdown. Most questions I may have will be due to what you say you're doing and how your building your's specifically and which specific parts and model numbers of components, etc., etc. That's why I asked which condenser you decided on...specifically. ;)

[enormousapp]

Oh, and I'm glad to hear the Hoyas are great! I'm expecting mine in a couple of days (back ordered).

Thanks!

[Guest]

enormousapp-
I'd love to hear about what you have figured out so far on your design. Im going to need to have some of my parts custom fabricated because they are precision pieces so you wont be able to just wait for me to finish and make a carbon copy of my design. Thats why we need more people involved on this thread so we can share the work on making a better design that everyone can build with off the shelf items.

-Brett

[Barry_Green]

It seems like if you're going the maximum telephoto route, a smaller diameter diopter should work just fine. However, you'll be sacrificing 1.5 stops of light sensitivity by zooming in so far.

Is there any hope of finding a diopter combination that will give you a full-frame 24x18mm frame, with the DVX lens at wide-angle?

[Guest]

From my exhasted research I would have to say no. I've never come across anything larger than 55mm in a +10 achromat. I looked everywhere - in and outside of the photo industry. I even gave myself a basic education in optics to find out if its possible and if I understand the rules/limitations correctly its not possible at that size. The only way you could do it is by stack one after another of the diopters that are much lower in power. The lower power diopters come in bigger diameters but by the time you have enough to add up to around +16 you have a hell of alot of glass in front of your camera not to mention how much that would cost. There might be problems with internal reflection as well. Even with the P+S Technik the DVX100 has to zoom in. Dont forget that even if it was possible your prisms would have to be enormous and most likely be custom made. Very expensive. Another problem with going fully wide is that even the slightest amount of dust on the font of your diopter would come sharply in focus. By zooming in you throw everything on that glass so far out of focus it cant be seen. Trust me its nearly impossible to keep glass perfectly clean. Hope that helps.

-Brett Erskine

[enormousapp]

I knew I was going to catch flak for admitting to riding coat tails. ;D

Honestly I'm still waiting and/or searching for parts myself. I just came back from Home Depot. ;)

Brett, it does seem that you're the one blazing the trail here with the DVX and perhaps well ahead of everyone else.

Anybody else out there working on the DVX? Anybody??

[Connolly]

I was looking through ebay and I noticed this thing, I am not sure if we could do anything with it, but it fits on the dvx and acts like a +10 diopter, maybe you could stack a hoya on top of it to make it +20. Im sure there is a lot of zooming involved though. Any thoughts?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3801071787&category=29 964

[Guest]

I almost forgot about thoughs things. Thanks for posting it. As I remember the problem was the inner diameter was too small. I believe it fits directly on to 52mm thread sized cameras but for the DVX100 you need to step down rings to get all the way down from 72mm to 52mm. But they say it works for the DVX100 this might be a good part to use. It looks like its made out of cheap plastic though and unless your putting very light weight still film lens on your adapter you might run into a problem in the future. Another thing too is with the Hoyas you will have a much short adapter than if you use this setup. Never the less its worth someone check it out.

-Brett Erskine

[Guest]

Hey Folks,

I've been following the thread for a few days now trying to figure out how to build a mini-35 for the DVX100.

I put up a web page that attempts to explain what's been said here in the forums over the past few months.

Could you please take a look and correct my mistakes/knowledge gaps or offer any suggestions?

Obviously, once I've got the information right, I'm going to 1. build one of these mugs and 2. Put up a better web page with proper links/credits to help others.

The URL is

http://www.angelfire.com/music5/dek_11/dof.html

Thanks!

DT

[Guest]

Where ever did you come up with that design ;-)

You made some mistakes though:

Condenser wont work there. Put it right next to the GG.

72mm to 55mm step down rings dont exist. You need two step down rings to make the full transition from 72mm to 55mm.

+16 diopter(s) or stronger is whats needed if you plan on using cine lenses. Still lenses work with +13 maybe +12

GG is made better with Aluminum Oxide 9Y

Give complete Flange Focal Length List

Housing CAN be made better with Aluminum tubing which needs to be custom fabricated with metric threads to allow for fully adjustable size.

And you forgot my name. ;-)


Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
1761 W. La Palma Ave., Suite #302
Anaheim, CA 92801
www.CinematographerReels.com
BErskine@CinematographerReels.com

[Barry_Green]

An F-to-C adapter is an adapter that would let you mount a Nikon lens onto a C-mount body. *I don't know specifically why you'd want one in your design, unless it's just a cheap way to get ahold of a Nikon mount. *It has nothing to do with a condenser lens, or any other type of lens, it's just an adaptor to let one type of lens (in this case, Nikon F-mount) fit onto a different type of body (in this case, a C-mount, which is a common mount for old 16mm movie cameras and some video cameras).

The condenser lens is designed to spread the light evenly onto the ground glass, avoiding "hot spots".

(in fact, the more I think about it, the more questionable I think a Nikon F-to-C adapter would be. C-mount has an outside thread diameter of about 25mm, and may not even be big enough to let a full-frame cine image shine through, and almost definitely could not let a full-frame still image shine through...)

[Guest]

Let me correct myself. B & H has 72-55mm step down rings.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, now that I've taken another look at this, let me ask this question: where does it say that the Hoya +10 is a 2-element lens? Hoya has apparently two series of macro lenses, single-element and 2-element. Near as I can tell, the 2-elements only go up to +5. Is there some official posting on an official Hoya site that proclaims the +10 as a 2-element achromat?

If not, there's also a Nikon achromat out there, at +6. Two of those would get you to +12, might be close enough. Adorama has the 6T (6 for +6, T for Two-element) at about $47:
http://www.adorama.com/NK62CU6T.html

Brett, since you're the leader on this, let me ask: do you have any of the Hoya +10's? Do they work? Are they quality?

[Guest]

Thanks for the feedback,

I've made the changes recommended. You guys (Brett, Barry) have been immortalized in the embedded comments.

Barry, according to BH description, "This is a lens of 2-element, 2-group construction and a +10 diopter rating", but uh.. I don't know what 2-element or 2-group means nor why it's germane here.. (Hint, hint.. )

Again, thanks for the help

[Guest]

I'll have to call Nikon about that +6 62mm diopter because IF it really is a two element than I would rather use three of though stacked on top of each other than the two Hoyas. The reason being that two Nikons would add up to +12 which about what you need for a still gate (36mm X 24mm) and if you stack all three Nikons you get +18 which is more than enough for motion picture lenses that have a gate size of 24mm X 18mm. Not to mention how much larger they are than the Hoyas...But I have a feeling your mistaken. According to the link you gave me it makes no mention of being a two element for that particular model ("Nikon ...6T"). Only the smaller 52mm "Nikon...4T and 3T" claim to be two elements.
I'll try asking Nikon tomorrow but it will be Sat. so we'll see.

Heres proof of the quality of the Hoyas:
http://www.lensmateonline.com/A80macrocomp.html

-Brett Erskine

[Guest]

B&H says the Nikon 6T is only a +2.9 diopter. Heres the link:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/product/37298/NICUL6T62/REG/4637

-Brett

[Barry_Green]

Hmm. Okay, disappointing...

[Guest]

Yeah I just confirmed on another site that the Nikon 6T is only +3 in power. Too bad. If in makes you feel any better I also confirmed that they do in fact have 2 elements.

(why did you have to get me excited like that?)

-B

[Barry_Green]

Okay, I got to thinking, and, well, I was bored, and...

okay, whatever. *Here it is, the world's first functional (okay, that's a VERY loose interpretation of the word) homemade mini35 for the DVX100!

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/HomemadeMini35-1.jpg

How's THAT for a piece? *:o

Okay, I figured that the diopter was the big hangup, getting something powerful enough to work with the DVX's lens. *So I thought, hey, what about reversing a still-camera lens, that'll get you some good macro power, right? *So I got my collection of still-camera lenses out and stuck 'em in front of the DVX's lens port. *Instantly it became obvious that the rear exit point of the lenses was too small, and the wider-angle the lens, the smaller the rear port -- which meant severe vignetting. *So I pulled out the big Zeiss 300mm lens from a medium-format camera, figuring: long telephoto should provide plenty of magnification, and the medium-format base should mean big exit port, right? *And, it fit! *It slaps onto the front of the DVX almost perfectly, and the rear port is just big enough to allow a full frame without much vignetting.

And, being a Zeiss multicoated optic, I figured it'd be decent quality...

First surprise was, the image wasn't upside-down and backward! *That was surprising, and disappointing -- I was hoping it would be, so that it would inherently flip the image from the eventual taking lens. *But, it wasn't. *Oh well.

I added some extension tubes to stretch out to the proper FFD from the rear of the 300mm lens. *Then, I needed some "ground glass". *Didn't have any, so I cut off a hunk of diffusion gel and high-tech gaffer-taped it to the rear of the reversed 300mm lens.

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/HomemadeMini35-3.jpg

Okay, so far so good. *I could see an image through the DVX viewfinder, of a white grainy splotch of in-focus fibers. *I then held up another still-camera lens in front of it, and the still lens projected an image onto the diffusion, which the DVX could read and display. *Success!

Of course, the image looked horrible, because -- well, heck, I was using a piece of diffusion for ground glass, I had no sealed tube so there was light spraying everywhere, and I was hand-holding the still-camera lens (since I was using one tripod to hold up the DVX and my second tripod to hold the 300mm reversed lens).

So, I made a mount for the still-camera lens, by cannibalizing the spring-loaded mount off one of those "scoop" worklights.

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/HomemadeMini35-2.jpg

Jammed the end in a C-stand, and clamped the 50mm "taking" lens in the spring-loaded jaws, and fiddled and finagled it into roughly the right position. *Then, to shield the "ground glass" from extraneous light, I plopped a sheet of black-wrap over it.

Quality is job 1, right?

Well, anyway, all I was trying to accomplish was a proof-of-concept, as to whether the reversed lens would actually work. *And it sort of does. *Here's a few seconds of video:

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/HomemadeMini35.wmv

Kids, do NOT try this at home. *'Cause it was really not worth it. * ;D

[Zoomforce]

jesus barry.. that is pretty nice.. I kinda figured you would give up waiting sooner or later and use your massive know to just jump on it.

pretty cool man..

[Guest]

Good job Barry! A few weeks ago I tore a used camera shop apart looking for a medium format or 35mm still lens that I could reverse mount. No luck. Everything had too small of a exit diameter. Nice job on finding that 300mm Ziess. What size gate were you focusing on (36mm X 24mm or 24mm X 18mm)? You mentioned it vinette just a bit - Are you talking about the light fall off or a physical crop/obstruction of the image?

Anyways thanks for doing all that hard work and posting. I'll keep you informed on my progress. You should think about using the Hoya achromats instead of the monster 300mm. Not to mention they allow the DVX100 to focus on the GG only about 5cm away. Im using them on my adapter and it looks like its going to be a total of only about 5 inchs long.

Thanks again!

-Brett Erskine

[Barry_Green]

Hey, guys, any other solution would be superior to this! This is, well, I mean if I really tried to manufacture something properly, it would work, but it's so massive and clumsy...

I totally felt like Jarred, it seemed like the kind of experiment you'd run (although I'm sure yours would have turned out a little better!)

(p.s., got that wireless video transmitter, it works pretty darn well for $38!)

Anyway, this wasn't really meant to be a workable solution, just an experiment.

The main point of the experiment was to see if using a reversed lens would cancel out the flipped-image problem of the taking lens. I figured that with two lenses in a row, one would flip upside-down/backwards, and the other would flip that upside-down/backwards, and the net effect would be right-side-up/forwards.

But it wasn't.

Still don't understand why not, but hey...

In any case, that experiment must be classified as a failure, and we're back to looking for the smaller achromatic diopter solution.

So yes, I'd be interested in seeing someone actually build one using the diopters, and posting a tutorial along the lines of Jim Lafferty's. I'd love to see some actual native DV footage taken from the Alain concept, so we can judge for ourselves how noticeable the grain pattern is. Still seems like the rotating ground glass is probably the ultimately superior solution.

[Barry_Green]

What size gate were you focusing on (36mm X 24mm * or * *24mm X 18mm)?

Well, you have to understand the "scientific" nature of the experiment -- it was pretty much "slap it together and see if it sticks". So for determining gate size, I used the scientific method of holding up a quarter to the rear of the lens, 'cause I figure a quarter is about 24mm. I could get super-razor-sharp focus on the quarter at the right FFD and it filled the frame from side-to-size, even a little bit too much, so I was a bit tighter than 24x18.


You mentioned it vinette just a bit - Are you talking about the light fall off or a physical crop/obstruction of the image?

Well, basically both. The rear exit port of the lens was just barely wide enough to not show in the frame. Move the DVX a quarter of a millimeter in any direction, and you'd get the port infringing on the frame. And there was uneven light illumination as well.

Again, the true quest here was the idea that if using one lens causes the image to be upside down and backwards, why wouldn't using two lenses cause it to be right-side-up and forwards? I thought it might be the solution to the whole roof-pentaprism boondoggle. That's what I set out to discover. And it didn't work.

Now, back to the actual practical method (which is diopters+gg+lens): that wax ground-glass looks promising! Did you ask 'em if they could make it in a round format? If it's truly grain-free and allows high light transmission, it seems like it'd be a better solution than trying to hand-grind a UV filter or other idea.

What's the status on progress on your adapter? Do you have all the parts? Have you made a prototype? And what's the plan for the upside-down-ness?

[Taylor Moore]

Brett and Barry,
Thanx for all your hard work on this...looking forward to seeing some video clips. Too damn busy here to experiment...

Did get to see the Viper in LA though.

[Barry_Green]

I have been intrigued by the idea for a while, but didn't have time to experiment with it either until last weekend.

Having used the mini35, I can pretty much say that I'm not going to be satisfied with any home-brew adapter. The mini35 is a solid, class piece of engineering. I could see landing more jobs with a mini35 in my stable of gear, but I couldn't imagine showing up on a set with a CD spindle and a spinning plastic disk... that just wouldn't go over well.

The static idea intrigues me though. If that wax screen is truly "grainless", why *not* go for the static one?

I've asked a camera engineer about the possibility of professionally manufacturing something like this. He's the guy who modified my 35mm camera, and did a stellar job. I think I'll start a new topic and ask how many might be interested in buying it, to see if we can get him more interested in building it. If he built it, it would be a class act, I can tell you that! :)

[Taylor Moore]

Hi Barry, I am very interested in the static version, please advise if starting a new thread.
Let me know the cost of your buddies mod.

[Guest]

Things are coming together very nicely. Ive been working on a design similar to what you discribe. I have my latest condenser lens coming any day now. Hopefully it will work. Its been the one wonder for me on this project. As posted a while back, I decided to go with a fully adjustable adapter that will work on multiple video camera and with muiltiple lens mounts and film gate sizes (ie, nikon, canon, cine, still, etc.). The details are in my previous post here and on DVinfo.net. I'm going to wait on purchasing one of the Bosscreens. I may not need it. As far as fliping the image via prisms I've decided to pass on this idea for technical/size reasons for now but Im designing my adapter so a prism may beable to be added later fairly easily. A commercial adapter would most likely need this feature. Never the less I am working on some radical design changes elsewhere that could very well make this thing more than useful for DOF but I dont want to get ahead of myself. Im with you Barry. Im trying to make a "no excuses" design here. After all this isnt just another piece of equipment for our camera. Everything we do, all our efforts and ideas will be filtering thru this adapter. Better make it so you dont find yourself making excuses for its short comings every time you shoot something. Besides there are so many other things other than just DOF that would be possible with adapters somewhat like the Mini35. I cant wait to finally finish and start shooting. Hell maybe I should start selling them too...Nah.

-Brett Erskine

[Encheval]

...lots of posts in different forums !

I'm very interested in the "DVX100 Home-made mini35 project" but i got a hard time trying to get it all together.


Brett, if you have some time would you be kind enought to post a summarize version of all your work / thoughts about all of this ?

Thx

Nico

[Guest]

Yeah. I'll have something for all the techies when Im done. But honestly most of my info has already been posted. People just have to put in the effort to read and learn for themselves.

-Brett

[Aejaz]

Hmmm

[Beat Takeshi]

Dang 9 pages. I have to take the weekend to read this whole thing.

[Boy]

Dang 9 pages. I have to take the weekend to read this whole thing.
haha i take it you haven't seen the dvinfo one on the original agus35? it took me a week or two to go through! it's at 68 pages now i believe..

[kyle_doris]

any news from those who are putting their rigs together?

[nullphonic]

There is a nice article about building a mini 35 mm adapter on the website dvd-lab. Nice explanations and nice pictures of the elements and work to get a home made 35 device.

the link:

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

Alex

This was posted in hardware, low-tech and interesting for someone not terribly familiar with the high level subject.

[eronquillo]

I've just finished reading tihs thread, and it's really getting me hyped up. I want to build one, but the one question on my mind is what is the best 35mm SLR lens to use with it?

[crit_flick]

I'm about to start my Agus35, so i've been doing some reading on that as well. *I think the original was made with a Minolta 50mm but I've read recomendations of a 35mm with a fast f/stop (2.8 or less) Apparently the DVX isn't quite as good in low lights as the Sonys are so i think we'll want one that will open up as wide as possible. *

Has anyone other than lobot made an Agus for the DVX yet? *Seems like everyones moved on to the static version.

BTW Alex, thanks for the great link.

[eronquillo]

Awesome! Thanks crit_flick. This will narrow my search for the lense. One thing I've noticed with some lenses I've seen is the focal length ranges are from .4 inches to some large value. Will this be enough to shoot further away from the subject to achieve selective focusing with the home made mini 35? Sorry. Too many questions from a newbie. ???

[ckalan1]

Hey guys check this out.
http://www.panwebi.com/default.asp?sp=961618

This is what caught my eye.

"The opal diffuser at the end of the Digital Duplicator helps to provide even illumination"

You can get this on ebay for $69.99
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29964&item=3809313 378&rd=1

[Guest]

How about a Mini16mm for a DVX 100. I say this because 35mm lenses are still rather expensive to rent for a documentary production whereas 16mm are for sale quite often at reasonable prices.

[Barry_Green]

It would be far more expensive, difficult, and less effective to make a Mini16mm.

16mm lenses are shorter than 35mm lenses, so they will exhibit less of the shallow-DOF effect.

Also, they project a much smaller circle of illumination, so you'd need substantially more magnification to fill the frame. Already the problem with homemade min35's for the DVX is trying to get enough magnification to fill the frame from a 35mm still-camera lens... filling the frame from a 16mm lens would require about 5x as much magnification.

[Guest]

I must thank everyone (especially Barry and Brett) for keeping this thread going. I've been following it for a long time and couldn't wait to get my DVX to try it out.

I'm glad you brought this magnification issue back up because I've been doing some experiments with the macro settings of my DVX100A and I'm finding that I can frame a 36 x 24 piece of paper almost perfectly. There might be a millimetre on both horizontal sides that I can't fit. Is that enough to cause vignetting???

I have the camera setting at Z71 and MF06 and the paper is approx. 1.25 inches from the front of the camera (without the lens hood attached). I know others have been having problems with the magnification so I'm wondering if there is a problem that I'm over looking. The only potential problem that I see is building a rig that allows the spinning cd to sit that close to the lens.

Which leads me to my next question... What is the best route to take as far as an attachment from the Agus35 adapter to the DVX lens? The mechanism/threading of where the lens hood attaches seems the easiest to attach and remove but is that a universal molding or one thats unique to the DVX lens hood?

I'm sort of holding off on buying my materials until I have this last part figured out.

Thanks again for sharing your experience

[Barry_Green]

Your experience with filling the frame differs from mine and others, primarily because you have a 100A. *The 100A changed the minimum focus distance so that it's a lot closer. *On a 100, you could never get MF06 when zoomed in to Z71!

You can use 36x24, although it won't really approximate a 35mm movie camera... 36x24 is the frame size for a still-camera. *Movie cameras use 24x18 (actually less, but at that point it's splitting hairs). *Filling the frame with 24x18 will likely prove much harder.

Using 36x24 should be fine, you may want to add a close-up lens like a Canon 500D or Hoya Macro achromat, which will let you fill the screen at an even wider zoom setting. *The wider the zoom, the more light you're letting in. *The DVX lens is f/1.6 at full wide angle, and f/2.8 at full telephoto. *It's probably f/2.4 at the Z71 setting, so the wider you can go, the brighter the image (although you might be getting a clearer image if you're using no magnifier in the optical path).

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, plus focus would likely be more consistent with an Aldu -- no spinning ground glass means more consistent positioning, whereas the spinning CD of an Agus may wander a bit to-and-fro, losing focus as it does.

But this is mainly rambling, because I haven't bothered to make one of these devices yet. *I don't know how well they truly perform. *It'd be nice to see some raw footage files from a high-quality camera (PD150, DVX, heck, even an XL1) to see what it *truly* looks like...

[qazwsx]

Wow, this thread has grown a lot. I stopped working on my adapter a while back, but am ready to try again. I had a question though... So the adapter replicates or preserves the depth of field of a film camera, but does it also preserve/replicate the gamma curve of a film camera? Or is that an actual characteristic of celluloid and not the lens?

[Barry_Green]

That's all in celluloid. However, different lenses can add color or contrast characteristics that wouldn't be present in the DVX lens itself, which can add a filmish feel to what you shoot.

[Taylor Moore]

Here's is a new link with 2 different designed adapters...
http://www.paddlefilms.com/35mm%20adapters.htm


Thanks Barry for all your technical knowhow :o
The focal issues of the DVX100A make me consider selling my 100? Any word from your engineering buddy re: doing the builds?
Are you attended NAB?

[crit_flick]

BTW, the settings that I found (Z71 MF06) that fits the 35mm frame, allows the iris to be wide open. :)

Whats the best piece of equipment to attach to the bayonet? I'm thinking of just buying a 72mm stepping ring and then adhesive it to a piece of PVC pipe to go into the adapter. Any other ideas? I'd like it as 'quick-release' as possible.

Jon

[Barry_Green]

Any word from your engineering buddy re: doing the builds?
Are you attended NAB?

The links didn't work. Only one link was there and it brought up an error 404 page.

No word from the engineer. I doubt it's going to happen.

I'm planning on attending NAB, if only I can find my badge. I shoveled stuff off my desk looking for it this morning, no luck. It's gotta be here somewhere...

[Guest]

Hey Barry. I'll see you at NAB. Maybe we should meet up. Who are you going for?

Sorry I havent been posting lately. I've been too busy with work. Thanks for the info on the 100-A though. I knew about the minimum focus but not that it could actually capture the whole frame. Now I wish I had the A as well. Oh well.

Anyways from my results and that of others GG made with AO seems barely passable at best when it comes to grain. And if you stop down past f2 you really see it. This is a real problem for two reasons. One most longer still zooms dont open to a f/2. And even if they did the DOF would be quite a challege on some projects. We may have to reexamine rotating GG designs to gain back some of that control. Im personally trying to avoid the CD-like adapter designs because the force the adapter to be too large. Instead Im looking for exisiting products out there that have a component that moves in a orbital direction. In other words rotation not on a center axis but on a outer access. I have some ideal designs draw out but the movements require parts made absolutly prefectly. Instead find something ready made and adapt it.
-Brett Erskine

[Barry_Green]

The CD adapters do seem a bit silly... I mean, what optical quality can you truly expect from sanding down a plastic CD insert? Plus the size and the noise make them not very practical. However, for $30, you gotta give those guys all the props in the world.

An oscillating GG seems the best way to go, but even then it will involve a motor and some noise. It's too bad the static version didn't pass muster... did anyone try it with that wax Boss Screen?

As for NAB, I figure I'll be roaming the floor probably on Tuesday, maybe Wednesday. Somewhere around here there was mention of a DVXUSER.com get-together, like at 5:00 p.m. one day... I might crash that.

[Taylor Moore]

Hey Barry and Brett,
The DVXUSER Meeting at NAB is at the Hilton on Tuesday at 5:00 ask at the front desk where. Will be great to finally meet you guys.

[Guest]

Hey Taylor do you have a rough head count yet? Barry, Taylor and any other Mini35 builders email me your cell number so we can make sure and meet up. Send it off list to BErskine@CinematographerReels.com and I'll reply with mine.


See you in VEGAS!

-Brett

[bigjin]

this web site might be a help to your guys :)

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

very nice web site I personally like it and plan to build one soon :)

[Taylor Moore]

Hi Brett,
I think it will be small around 5-10 people unless there are a few non-members lurking in the BG who will come.
Looking forward to meeting all of you at NAB.

Taylor

[Guest]

Anyways from my results and that of others GG made with AO seems barely passable at best when it comes to grain. -Brett Erskine

Brett,

I have some 1000 grit aluminum oxide and cerium oxide polish on the way from therockshed.com and was curious if you'd tried the CO as well? Was the grain with CO polished GG unacceptable as well?

I'm also shooting with a 100A, so maybe not needing a macro lens (or maybe needing a less powerful one) will help with the grain problem.

Ah well, it's kinda moot I suppose. In a few more days I'll find out for myself.

Derek

[Guest]

Please do because I havent tried CO. And if you have already used AO Im be curious to know if CO is any better. From what Ive read its not generally used for that purpose.

NAB DVX100 meeting-
Okay where the hell were you guys. I asked the front desk and information at the Hilton and they didnt have any info about what room the meeting was in.

-Brett

[Nick_Conti]

Hello everyone! I just registered to dvxuser this morning and I know I'll be reading through these threads all the time!

I just jumped into the game of making these adapters, and first read of the Agus35 on dvinfo. I ordered most of my supplies based on that model and once I saw the Aldu version I came across this site and now I'm reconsidering working on the static model first. Once I have everything I need and can start grinding I'll be sure to post my experiences and input.

There's a few questions I wanted to ask you guys about the achromat diopters. I'm shooting on a 100A and most likely won't need two 10x pieces. If I used two 10x anyway would that hurt me in any way? The reason I would just get two 10x instead of experimenting is at least I know I can work multiple lens type usage in there somehow and I don't have the time or money to try all different power levels. But if I did take the easy way out would I have to just zoom in more and possibly deny myself of the ability to attain a lower f-stop? I've already started principle photography on a sketch comedy show I'm shooting and the sooner I can be running accurate tests the better!

I understand in full the purpose of the condensor, but am not completely sure what I should be looking for to use as one. This would be a piece along the lines of a fresnel right? If Brett or anyone out there can bear with my newbie-style questions I'd be all too thankful :)

Since I was first thinking about Building the Agus my brain is still bent on thinking about a spinning ground glass, or at least one in some form of movement. This static adapter is much less bulky and easier to start out with, especially for the DVX, but can't there be some way we can incorporate the moving ground glass into this "barrell" style design???

This was rolling around me head lastnight, so please try to follow my fragmented logic :)

Let's say we had a threaded filter that has the ability of its glass element to spin in its housing for adjustments to be made in its orientation. I'm not sure if these really exist, but for some reason I feel like I've seen them before. That would mean if it was used as the ground glass, there would be a way for it to spin already. The motor would obviously have to spin the ground glass filter from the outside, and that is something a little tricky to figure out. Maybe using the basic principle of a follow focus mount to spin the glass? I'm sure I'm simplifying it, but mount a geared ring around the ground glass filter and place another gear to work with that one at 90 degrees and thats the one you can hook the motor to. So the motor will spin the gears and in turn spin the ground glass. Can someone shoot me down cause I know I have to me missing something and I bet its impossible!

And if this was even able to be employed, would we experience the "grain vortex" that I've read about with the older P+S mini35 models? Just a thought that maybe can get some of these great minds on this messageboard brewing some new innovations!

Maybe we could get real fancy and figure out a way to make the glass oscillate so that vortex isn't an issue ;)

Hope to hear all your comments and opinions soon!

Nick

[Brett_Erskine]

Hey everyone. Heres an update for all you guys trying to flip the image right side up again. You can use a very small magnet next to the flip out monitors henge to trigger the camera to think the monitor has been turned around and thus displaying the image right-side up when you use your camera with a mini35 adapter. Credit goes to Joel Corkin who, with the help of all the great guys at DVinfo.net, figured it out. Thanks.

-Brett Erskine
www.CinematographerReels.com

[Brett_Erskine]

I just tried the idea of using a magnet to trick the monitor to flip the image and it works....BUT I think the magnet might be harmful to the monitor because it started to flash and had a intermittent signal. Im not sure if you can do fatal damage to it so before you guys try it for yourself hop on google and find out what magnets do or dont do to LCD screens.

-Brett Erskine

[kyle_doris]

Brett, apparently according to my 'mini35' team at RPI, it's quite easy to optically flip the image without using a prism. from the stuff i've seen so far i have no reason not to believe them.

i'm not sure if it's the best idea to have people use a magnet with their DVX, we don't want people doing more damage then good, hehe.