DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
- Thread starter redrock
- Start date
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
bvalente: The current design will sit between the 35mm lens and the body of the camera/35mm adapter.
Do you mean inside the 35mm adapter? This could be done but since I do not have access to the production line of these adapters it's something I really don't want to attempt. An attachment that would go in front of the lens could work but it has many more downsides than a rear mounted version. The most problematic being that you would need a separate adapter for every diameter 35mm lens you had (not practical of course!).
There are two ways to appraoch this design and I am currently weighing their benefits and down sides. One would be short but it would increase the focal length of your lens (not good). The other would be longer but would keep the focal length the same. The hard part is making the adapter as small as possible while still retaining good image quality and while maintaining the original focal length. That's the area I'm working on at the moment.
Goober: Did redrock say the new one would have no res loss? I've been away for a while so I may have missed it. I think the tests he has on his site are using the new GG and we're seeing about a 100line loss in res.
bvalente: The current design will sit between the 35mm lens and the body of the camera/35mm adapter.
Do you mean inside the 35mm adapter? This could be done but since I do not have access to the production line of these adapters it's something I really don't want to attempt. An attachment that would go in front of the lens could work but it has many more downsides than a rear mounted version. The most problematic being that you would need a separate adapter for every diameter 35mm lens you had (not practical of course!).
There are two ways to appraoch this design and I am currently weighing their benefits and down sides. One would be short but it would increase the focal length of your lens (not good). The other would be longer but would keep the focal length the same. The hard part is making the adapter as small as possible while still retaining good image quality and while maintaining the original focal length. That's the area I'm working on at the moment.
Goober: Did redrock say the new one would have no res loss? I've been away for a while so I may have missed it. I think the tests he has on his site are using the new GG and we're seeing about a 100line loss in res.
bvalente
DVXuser Sponsor
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
shaw - no, I wasn't advocating inside the 35mm. I think behind is the right approach, since it would allow for any type of lens. So do I take it correctly that you have a working prototype you are testing? I'm curious if you are losing f stops and/or res loss from this adapter. Seems to be the final piece in all this. Cheers
shaw - no, I wasn't advocating inside the 35mm. I think behind is the right approach, since it would allow for any type of lens. So do I take it correctly that you have a working prototype you are testing? I'm curious if you are losing f stops and/or res loss from this adapter. Seems to be the final piece in all this. Cheers
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
Goober: Interesting. I look forward to hearing from James on this and seeing the results!
bvalente: That would be in reference to the new micro35 GG
. I'm at an interesting stage actually. I have no operational model at the moment. I have been designing the lens with some professional lens design software (takes out a lot of the costly experimenting). Basically I've been "testing" different setups and analyzing the software's response. It gives information on the level of distortion, rough light loss, chromatic aberration etc. All I have to do is settle on a final design . I'm trying to incorporate as much as possible for the lowest cost. Ideally the adapter will be switchable between 16:9 and 2.35 when complete.
Goober: Interesting. I look forward to hearing from James on this and seeing the results!
bvalente: That would be in reference to the new micro35 GG
. I'm at an interesting stage actually. I have no operational model at the moment. I have been designing the lens with some professional lens design software (takes out a lot of the costly experimenting). Basically I've been "testing" different setups and analyzing the software's response. It gives information on the level of distortion, rough light loss, chromatic aberration etc. All I have to do is settle on a final design . I'm trying to incorporate as much as possible for the lowest cost. Ideally the adapter will be switchable between 16:9 and 2.35 when complete.Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
Don't know - just trying for the cheapest possible. If it looks like the switchable feature will cost a bit more then I won't go with it. If I can design it correctly though it shouldn't be much more expensive than a static type (if at all). Just a matter of adding an adjustment ring.
Don't know - just trying for the cheapest possible. If it looks like the switchable feature will cost a bit more then I won't go with it. If I can design it correctly though it shouldn't be much more expensive than a static type (if at all). Just a matter of adding an adjustment ring.
DEATHTOPRINT
Active member
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
im shooting a short film in about 2 weeks. i'd test it out too. that is... if you're looking for testers.
im shooting a short film in about 2 weeks. i'd test it out too. that is... if you're looking for testers.
mastermind
Well-known member
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
i'd definately LOVE 2.35:1 anamorphic
i'd definately LOVE 2.35:1 anamorphic
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
I, for one, have no interest in 2.35:1 in an adapter and I think it's a waste of money if it makes the product cost a single cent more.
DVDs support native 16:9 so it's useful to have the extra res for playback on HDTVs. It's nice for film out, too (although this is an issue for just about no one, seeing as using a mini-35 is bad, bad news for film out due to resolution loss, grainiess, etc.)
DVDs support 2.35:1 only through letterboxed 16:9 anamorphic. Thus....the extra res won't help you when you make a DVD. In fact, the conversion process will be a pain. And I don't think too many film transfer houses deal with 720X480 stretched to 2.35:1 and the results would look pretty awful since the resolution would be so incredibly low horizontally. So it's useless for DVDs and film-out. Plus, there's no glass which does that conversion either. Scope stretches by a ratio of 2:1. The ONLY use would be transfer to HD-DVDs and not only is that a long, long, way off, but I doubt the minor resolution benefits would outweight the trouble and cost of such expensive custom glass.
Plenty of programs edit in 16:9 (final cut pro, etc. etc.) but there is no program which edits scope NTSC. It just seems like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
I, for one, have no interest in 2.35:1 in an adapter and I think it's a waste of money if it makes the product cost a single cent more.
DVDs support native 16:9 so it's useful to have the extra res for playback on HDTVs. It's nice for film out, too (although this is an issue for just about no one, seeing as using a mini-35 is bad, bad news for film out due to resolution loss, grainiess, etc.)
DVDs support 2.35:1 only through letterboxed 16:9 anamorphic. Thus....the extra res won't help you when you make a DVD. In fact, the conversion process will be a pain. And I don't think too many film transfer houses deal with 720X480 stretched to 2.35:1 and the results would look pretty awful since the resolution would be so incredibly low horizontally. So it's useless for DVDs and film-out. Plus, there's no glass which does that conversion either. Scope stretches by a ratio of 2:1. The ONLY use would be transfer to HD-DVDs and not only is that a long, long, way off, but I doubt the minor resolution benefits would outweight the trouble and cost of such expensive custom glass.
Plenty of programs edit in 16:9 (final cut pro, etc. etc.) but there is no program which edits scope NTSC. It just seems like a completely ridiculous idea to me.
gritsngumbo
Active member
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
Redrock Sighting?? Anyone see or heard from? Would like to know what's going on.
Redrock Sighting?? Anyone see or heard from? Would like to know what's going on.
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
You certainly have a point Policar. I'm not sure it would be *useless* for film out. I think it would be of benefit in digital projection and/or film. I've seen deinterlaced video that was shot with an anamorphic projector lens (over the front of the video camera) that looked rather decent. I'd imagine the DVX could do an even greater job.
An example can be seen here:
http://owyheesound.com/owyheesound_...tographing_Zombies/photographing_zombies.html
Not the best way to judge due to compression and interlacing but not too bad either.
A good point about the mini35 and film out though. I'd need to run some tests myself just to see how bad things would get and whether it would justify the research into 2.35.
I'm not sure what you mean by there is no glass which stretches by that ratio. I'm going to have to have custom glass made anyway to get the 16:9 aspect ratio correct with the least amount of distortion/aberration anyway. Actually to get cinemascope with a 4:3 camera you would need a magnification factor of about 1.66x. With a 2x expansion you would end up with a 2.66:1 aspect ratio (given the 4:3 nature of the CCDs). So that helps with the resolution problem a little bit. In fact, the video I mentioned that was shot with an anamorphic projector lens had a full 2x squeeze (thus a 2.66:1 ratio) and it looked decent.
Also, it may have a benefit for DVD. A small one perhaps. If you downres your footage with a decent scaler you should be able to eleminate a few digital artifacts from the compression process (assuming you don't add just as many from the downres. You would need a decent downscaler as mentioned).
Of course, as you mention, editing becomes a problem but it's not impossible. Such an adapter would not be of much (if any) use in making SD DVDs - quite right. For projection though it could be of use. Whether this justifies the expense is debateable. I'ts something I've certainly pondered. As I mentioned before, I'm going to see what the expense would be to implement it. If it's a matter of 2$ for a ring to move a lens element back and forth then I think I'll go for it on the outside chance that it proves useful.
In any case I'm doing the project because I'm interested in it. I'm not concerned with research and development costs as I'm not out to make money. Heck, I'll provide the plans free (when available) to anyone who wants them. Saves me some trouble! I'm not in it to make money - I'm just in it for my own curiosities sake. If my curiosity just so happens to help others well then I'll be happy.
You certainly have a point Policar. I'm not sure it would be *useless* for film out. I think it would be of benefit in digital projection and/or film. I've seen deinterlaced video that was shot with an anamorphic projector lens (over the front of the video camera) that looked rather decent. I'd imagine the DVX could do an even greater job.
An example can be seen here:
http://owyheesound.com/owyheesound_...tographing_Zombies/photographing_zombies.html
Not the best way to judge due to compression and interlacing but not too bad either.
A good point about the mini35 and film out though. I'd need to run some tests myself just to see how bad things would get and whether it would justify the research into 2.35.
I'm not sure what you mean by there is no glass which stretches by that ratio. I'm going to have to have custom glass made anyway to get the 16:9 aspect ratio correct with the least amount of distortion/aberration anyway. Actually to get cinemascope with a 4:3 camera you would need a magnification factor of about 1.66x. With a 2x expansion you would end up with a 2.66:1 aspect ratio (given the 4:3 nature of the CCDs). So that helps with the resolution problem a little bit. In fact, the video I mentioned that was shot with an anamorphic projector lens had a full 2x squeeze (thus a 2.66:1 ratio) and it looked decent.
Also, it may have a benefit for DVD. A small one perhaps. If you downres your footage with a decent scaler you should be able to eleminate a few digital artifacts from the compression process (assuming you don't add just as many from the downres. You would need a decent downscaler as mentioned).
Of course, as you mention, editing becomes a problem but it's not impossible. Such an adapter would not be of much (if any) use in making SD DVDs - quite right. For projection though it could be of use. Whether this justifies the expense is debateable. I'ts something I've certainly pondered. As I mentioned before, I'm going to see what the expense would be to implement it. If it's a matter of 2$ for a ring to move a lens element back and forth then I think I'll go for it on the outside chance that it proves useful.
In any case I'm doing the project because I'm interested in it. I'm not concerned with research and development costs as I'm not out to make money. Heck, I'll provide the plans free (when available) to anyone who wants them. Saves me some trouble! I'm not in it to make money - I'm just in it for my own curiosities sake. If my curiosity just so happens to help others well then I'll be happy
.
smkoch
Well-known member
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
I'm just hoping this thing ends up getting released and isn't another (could have been great) idea, no offense to anyone but doesn't it get tiring waiting around hoping for all of these great ideas' that just seem to be around the next corner.
I'm just hoping this thing ends up getting released and isn't another (could have been great) idea, no offense to anyone but doesn't it get tiring waiting around hoping for all of these great ideas' that just seem to be around the next corner.
Re: DIY micro35 kit (New Footage!)
I think you should leave it at 16:9 I think that would make your life and incredible amount easier, as well as I don't see the need for all the hassel in post to shoot cinescope. Are you planning on making this lens for the micro35 or a mini 35 design of your own. I am not quite sure how this would mount to the micro35?
I really would not count this micro out as far as film outs go, I am not one hundred percent sure on this but I hear good things. Don't get discouraged I am sure you guys will hear something soon.
(r)
I think you should leave it at 16:9 I think that would make your life and incredible amount easier, as well as I don't see the need for all the hassel in post to shoot cinescope. Are you planning on making this lens for the micro35 or a mini 35 design of your own. I am not quite sure how this would mount to the micro35?
I really would not count this micro out as far as film outs go, I am not one hundred percent sure on this but I hear good things. Don't get discouraged I am sure you guys will hear something soon.
(r)