70mm Adapter

7

70mmDV

Member
Hey,
I've got a couple medium format Hasselblad lenses and they blow the 35mm DOF out of the water. I'm building an adapter for a DVX with a rotating GG for the Hass lenses and giving it a 70mm frame, like the old ben-hur movies. I figure this will be awesome. I'd love to get a 16:9 camera and put an anamorphic adapter on it to get a 1:2.35 image.

any thoughts?
 
What GG are you using? You do know that an anamorphic adapter will give you deeper DOF, and surely, shallow DOF is what you're trying to achieve. But hey, post some footage and prove me wrong, yes?
 
You're welcome man! If today we are going to the movies that's why there were Lumieres and Edisons like you... Go ahead!
 
Hey, the only real reason people use 35mm is they are SO much less expensive than the medium format lenses.
 
Specially regarding the 70mm film cost vs. the 35mm one. But are there reasons to figure similar hassle@digital_environment?...

...
 
70mmDV said:
I'd love to get a 16:9 camera and put an anamorphic adapter on it to get a 1:2.35 image.
Click to expand...
What medium can display a 2,35:1 anamorphic image? I would shoot 16:9 and add black bars. That sort of image can be displayed correctly on both 4:3 and 16:9 tvs. Also, adding black bars is A LOT cheaper than any anamorphic adapter.
 
Last edited:
If you have a Hasselblad why are you wasting your time making an adapter for a DVX. go take pictures, and sell them for thousands of dollars in a gallery.

Thats like having a ferrari, and using it to tow a camper.
 
your right, but if i use a dvx my footage is in SD, and i dont want to lose any res by black baring it. i could stretch the image out in FCP and output it at 720p. It would do a little upsampling but its better then throwing out information.

also, i am going to put the anamorphic adapter on the cam and not the front of the adapter so the DOF should be unchanged
 
Not to dissrupt the thread or anything, but I just have to comment on X2mag68's post. This really drives me nuts when people think this way. Just as an example, the print that I made the most money on ever, was shot with a $20 Holga, and a $2.00 roll of film. Your equipment has nothing to do with making money, it's all about how you use it.
 
Schark, i know this.

but im saying if you have a beautiful piece of equptment use it. Dont let it sit there.

youre right, the most expensive thing ive ever sold was a Drawing. made with a .50$ pencil and a 2$ sheet of paper.
My Video work sells for half.
But, i think its silly to start taking apart a Hasselblad to made a Shallow DOF adapter.


i am totoally a flag bearer for the "its the man, not the camera" philosophy. but if your runnıng around wıth a Blad, youre obviously not a novice photographer. i am trying to tell the guy to take more pictures and not worry about buildıng a DOF adpter with lenses that cost more than most used cars.

just for the sake of thoes that cant neccesarily afford a Hasselblad system.
 
Last edited:
x2mag68 said:
but im saying if you have a beautiful piece of equptment use it.
Click to expand...
and if he/she/I haven't it and they/we would like it?


x2mag68 said:
i am trying to tell the guy to take more pictures
Click to expand...
or according you, he must take more pictures with a SD DV consumer camcorder.. maybe?


x2mag68 said:
Dont let it sit there.
Click to expand...
x2mag68 said:
the most expensive thing ive ever sold was a Drawing. made with a .50$ pencil and a 2$ sheet of paper.
My Video work sells for half.
But, i think its silly to start taking apart a Hasselblad to made a Shallow DOF adapter.
Click to expand...
x2mag68 said:
but if your runnıng around wıth a Blad, youre obviously not a novice photographer.
Click to expand...
x2mag68 said:
and not worry about buildıng a DOF adpter with lenses.
Click to expand...
and your philosophy is it also to..
:nads:
..DIY bashing?
..creative tools bashing?
..indie spirit bashing?








..or is it just trolling? :badputer:
 
scharky said:
Not to dissrupt the thread or anything, but I just have to comment on X2mag68's post. This really drives me nuts when people think this way. Just as an example, the print that I made the most money on ever, was shot with a $20 Holga, and a $2.00 roll of film. Your equipment has nothing to do with making money, it's all about how you use it.
Click to expand...
Wisely said.

x2mag68 said:
Schark, i know this. (...) i am totoally a flag bearer for the "its the man, not the camera" philosophy.
Click to expand...
Too late. You already stepped on thin ice.
 
70mmDV said:
your right, but if i use a dvx my footage is in SD, and i dont want to lose any res by black baring it. i could stretch the image out in FCP and output it at 720p. It would do a little upsampling but its better then throwing out information.

also, i am going to put the anamorphic adapter on the cam and not the front of the adapter so the DOF should be unchanged
Click to expand...
You don't lose any resolution with black bars on 16:9 footage, because there is no 2,35:1 tv that will stretch the image to get rid of the bars. If you output it at 720p you will still have to squeeze the image vertically and add bars if you're going to display it on a tv from a dvd. Correct me if I'm wrong. And then there is the upsampling. I would just back up a little with the camera and add black bars. That way I don't have to throw away any important information either. They black bared LOTR as well. ;)

If you would put the anamorphic adapter on a 16:9 camera and then use a DOF adapter, don't you think you would have to zoom in pretty far on the ground glass? I had problems with my 16:9 camera and my 35-adapter. However, maybe you will solve this problem with a medium format lense instead of a 35mm lens.
 
Last edited:
I say if you have the lenses go for it, but you are going to need to make a very large GG. I believe that medium format lenses tend to have less resolving power than 35mm lenses, but they make up for it with such large film. It seems that assuming the grain size of your GG remained constant, using a larger GG and a medium format lens might reduce the size of the grain in relation to the size of the image.

I would think that the fact that these lenses are typically slower than 35mm lenses might be a problem. Certainly focusing with them wide open would be a real challenge.
 
Yeah, a 70mm adapter doesn't seem impossible, but making it out of the same simple (and cheap) materials that many people are using might not be feasible. I'd be very interested in seeing a working 70mm adapter though. Might allow less light loss due to the larger lenses. I'm no expert though so I'm not sure if it would or not.
 
x2mag68 said:
If you have a Hasselblad why are you wasting your time making an adapter for a DVX. go take pictures, and sell them for thousands of dollars in a gallery.

Thats like having a ferrari, and using it to tow a camper.
Click to expand...

hahaha I like that. But more power to you 70mmDV if you want to give it a shot. I don't want to unnecessarily discourage anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top