35mm adapters - let me get this right....

reflex

reflex

Well-known member
So let me get this right, the adapters have basically these things in common..


35mm still camera lens -------> some sort of ground glass ( moving or not moving ) -------------> a tube or seperator piece -------->macro lens


Right?


so that the macro lens will focus on the image on the ground glass and then that will allow you to use the 35mm lens to focus and shoot with

is this correct?
 
Your understanding is basically correct, with the minor exception that the focus screen doesn't have to be ground glass, it can be any number of things which behave in a similar way (wax, diffusion material, etched CD blank, etc).
 
That is the task of the front lens. Consider the function of a lens in a 35mm camera. When exposign the film (taking the picture) the lens gathers the light, passes it through an aperture where it is focused on the photographic film plane. Now, just imagine replacing the photographic film with a focus screen. When viewed from the rear, the image that the lens is focused on can be seen (though inverted).

In the case of a SLR camera, the same thing occurs when the camera isn't exposing the film. The light from the cameras lens is bounced by a mirror (which moves out of the way when exposing the film) up toward a focus screen (usually ground glass) and then is passed through a pentaprism (which corrects the upside down and reversed image caused the focus screen and mirror) to the eye piece for the operator to view.
 
ok that makes perfect sense to me now. Thank you. SLR stands for still lens ....? ?

I also found out that Sony cameras ( video ) dont use a magnet to flip the lcd when pointing the lcd screen to the subject. I guess you have to open the lcd? or the case OR drill a little hole to manually hold a switch down. Does anyone know about this? on know what i could do to fix this? I dont have any money to spend right now so what is the cheapest suggestion? could I take off my screen ( by the screws ) and flip it around?
 
SLR - Single Lens Reflex

basically defined as a camera that uses the same lens for the view finder and exposing the film or imager.
 
I am hearing these rumors of the polyester membrane. (Another Post)
And I am also wondering about this "wax solution"
 
The thinner the ground glass (whether glass or not, whether ground or not, but let's call whatever it is a GG) the better, otherwise you run into the problem of ghosting, where the image is projected on the ground surface and little bit is also shows up on the non-ground surface. If the GG is thin enough, the two images are close enough together that they'll blend and you won't notice.

You also need to have the GG surface opaque enough to allow the image to be seen, but translucent enough so the video lens can see it. Too translucent, and you'll see a big bright circle like you're looking through the SLR lens in addition to looking at the projected image.

With all these things to consider...I'm not at all disturbed by the P+S prices.
 
I just put in an order for the Letus35 and am going to give that a shot. I have a music video to shoot Dec 3rd and would like to try it out for that.
 
GenJerDan said:
The thinner the ground glass (whether glass or not, whether ground or not, but let's call whatever it is a GG) the better, otherwise you run into the problem of ghosting, where the image is projected on the ground surface and little bit is also shows up on the non-ground surface. If the GG is thin enough, the two images are close enough together that they'll blend and you won't notice.

You also need to have the GG surface opaque enough to allow the image to be seen, but translucent enough so the video lens can see it. Too translucent, and you'll see a big bright circle like you're looking through the SLR lens in addition to looking at the projected image.

With all these things to consider...I'm not at all disturbed by the P+S prices.
Click to expand...
:beer: :beer:
I get the impression you may know the price and source of some thin ground glass amterial which can serve as the statrt for a home brewed 35mm mini 35
adopter ?
Please share if I am right .
Thanks
Bruce
 
Me? Nah. Although in this thread (or maybe one of the other recent ones), there is a link to site that has ground glass and "pearl" glass at reasonable prices, and if I recall correctly, the thickness was around 2mm. That might be thin enough...I don't know...and I don't have any real need for an adapter at the moment + too many other DIY projects on-going.

And, when I finally do get around to doing one, it'll be bayonet-mounted, not screwed onto the DVX lens. I don't trust that much weight hanging onto those teeny tiny threads. :grin:
 
TO: reflex


My friend just bought one and its awesome. Those guys are very professional and delivery is fast! I was going to do the same, but I wanted to learn how to make one first.

GOOD LUCK!!!
 
twocik23 said:
TO: reflex


My friend just bought one and its awesome. Those guys are very professional and delivery is fast! I was going to do the same, but I wanted to learn how to make one first.

GOOD LUCK!!!
Click to expand...

Good to hear :D I was hearing only good things about it and the price was right. I almost ordered the Micro35 but this setup was like 500 less. I just got tired of trying to back up and zoom in trying to recreate that look. He said 3-7 days once he gets it all together so it shouldn't be long. One thing I was thinking of and what most prompted me to buy a 35mm adapter was the stuff posted by the guy i think from ecuador. He always has the naked girls in his stuff LOL besided the girls the look that he gets literally is the finest **** I've seen from a video camera ever. I know its sonys new HD cam with a G35 adapter but he isnt' shitting when he said ' better than George Lucas ' I really agree with it. I actually prefer it to the look of film. Its so crisp and clear, the colors are great, the shallow dof puts your attention on just what he wants you to be looking at.

But my camera isn't an HD; so I'm gonna try to get what I can out of mine. Hopefully something really great. When I get the adapter I will post some clips of my results. :evil:
 
reflex said:
what most prompted me to buy a 35mm adapter was the stuff posted by the guy i think from ecuador. He always has the naked girls in his stuff LOL besided the girls the look that he gets literally is the finest **** I've seen from a video camera ever.
Click to expand...

That's MacGregor, he's in Spain...and yeah, his videos are pretty incredible.

http://personales.ya.com/autodrome/
 
The video I see shot on that Macgregor site looks like 24p, but I thought the Sony cameras don't offer that option?

And the video at the very bottom of the page does not use a G35 adapter; so then, what the hell DID he use to get that look? I've always thought the Sony HDV cameras couldn't procude these film like images, because of the lack of 24 fps.
 
Gordon JL said:
The video I see shot on that Macgregor site looks like 24p, but I thought the Sony cameras don't offer that option?

And the video at the very bottom of the page does not use a G35 adapter; so then, what the hell DID he use to get that look? I've always thought the Sony HDV cameras couldn't procude these film like images, because of the lack of 24 fps.
Click to expand...

But I don't see how 24 frames a sec will produce a film like look. If you shot 30 fps of interlaced video and 24 fps of interlaced video I dare you to tell the difference. To me you can get closer to film becuase it shoots full frames instead of two half fields , hence the 24 'p'. Also I thought that the filmic look was also due more to the way the dvx and other cameras like it can deal with the light entering the camera and gamma settings. Am i right? To me the 24 fps is the part of the camera that matters the least....:lipsrseal
 
theres the look of film (gamma, dof, dynamic range) and the feel of film (cadence). You can shot with a shallow dof all day long, without 24p the result will still be the buzzy electronic feeling you get when you see 60i.

No, 24p (cadence) is not the most essential part, but its not what matters least. Try DVfilm.com and demo Maker 2. 24p will make a big difference to your pd150 clips.
 
I understand what you are saying, but some I don't.

Edweirdo said:
You can shot with a shallow dof all day long, without 24p the result will still be the buzzy electronic feeling you get when you see 60i.
Click to expand...

But if you're shooting digital it's still an electronic process nontheless whether it's 24 frames or 100 frames. the interlacing will add to that look ( with the lines that appear usually during movement. )

I'm just saying this becuase I've seen some people using 24p on a DVX and it looks no different than my Sony with 60i. They were shooting a commercial for a store that I was working at. One key light, and one DVX on 24p. When I saw the finished product, it certainly did not look more filmic. The only thing I can see 24 frames helping is a more surreal look becuase i think? 24 is the amount that the eye wont really notice any individual frames going by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top