disassembling the DVX lens

G

Gundorf Dunderklumpen

Well-known member
On an earlier post I saw that someone was taking a Sony FX-1 apart and setting it up to accept other lens'. Does anyone remember that thread and who those guys were?. It may be worth checking in to. Especially if you have an older DVX.
thanks!
 
They were some italians... if you're considering taking the lense apart... be EXTREMELY careful, as the ccd wires are easily broken and bent, not to mention doing any of that **** voids the warranty (to the EXTREME)
 
That eidomedia guy (Matteo Ricchetti) is using quite interesting 35mm adapter concept.. He vibrates his GG by some oscilloscope gadget - there was a link from the dvinfo.net not sure whether is this information still linked within eidomedia site though..

Anyway DVX100A with modified lens, added 35mm adapter, Andromeda real-stream uncompressed HD data stream output, equiped with some follow focus as well as 7" display would be the ultimate indie camera..

Some people seem to be pretty close, for instance Obin Olson or Nicholas Bartleet
with his modified Sony HDR-FX1E/35mm and perhaps few others..
 
The constant persuit of the "Holy Grail", the constant attempts and lengths people will go to to achieve the "film look" with video is truly and amazement to me.

There is no video camera that produces a "film look", it simply isn't possible. Take 5 films, 3 shot on film, 2 on video (with all the toys attached, and post work done), and have them randomly viewed. The video shots are going to be picked out every time, without difficulty.

If you want a "film look", shoot with film. No video take is going to reproduce the grain or the subtle effects of film. Thats the reason a cinematographer takes great care in choosing which stock to use, the effects that can be enhanced by the choice of the right stock can make or break a film.

Video doesn't do it, even with the latest and greatest Mini35 bolted onto your camera.

Theres more to a "film look" than depth of field, so my comment stands.

Slap more glass onto your camera, you get a better "video look", but you don't get a "film look".
 
Exactly. If people put half of the energy spent playing with all the gadgets into working with their stock DVX footage and making it look better, they'd be way ahead of the game.
 
Pookie hit it right on the nose, but as usual someone will come along just to argue the contrary.


Film's appearance is more than the sum of it's parts, so just attacking it part by part will never be the same. It's part science (physics and chemistry) and part art.

As a lame analogy, try making "clay-like" 3d animation look like real claymation. It will never happen. There are many subtleties that we take for granted until we are faced with a fake.

However, if I may be so bold, we're all here because we enjoy the ease of use of video, its flexibility, and primarily (I assume) its cost.

Well done video can be absolutely stunning.
 
I agree that if you want a film look you should shoot film. However, Different lens' offer different perspectives on any one image. Too many people confuse the "ADAPTER" with "FILM LOOK"
My point is there are things that the stock lens just wont do. has nothing to do with film.
Seems like these discussions just go in circles on this site.
 
hmm. I don't recall telling anyone that they are wrong, wells. I simply asked who can skillfully disassemble the dvx lens to make it possible to mount other lenses. THe discussion then turned into a debate about getting a "film look." I NEVER asked how to get a film look.
 
high8 said:
hmm. I don't recall telling anyone that they are wrong, wells. I simply asked who can skillfully disassemble the dvx lens to make it possible to mount other lenses. THe discussion then turned into a debate about getting a "film look." I NEVER asked how to get a film look.
Click to expand...

You asked what I meant.
I told you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top