Mini 35 Adapter Review

Being that an HD image is really sharp, I would think that a high quality ground glass is required to maintain that image; even if it is spinning or vibrating especially if you intend on displaying it on the big screen. Is there info/footage on the mini and guerilla adapters displayed on a large screen? If yes, can you provide a link.
 
Hello Jarred,
I can understand a spinning disc ground glass to" kill grain "
But i dont understand the reson for the flickering
or the "oscillating ground glass on this mini 35 .
Can you give an explanation of how and
why it works?
and the alternatives with pro and con issues ?.
Thanks for a reply
Bruce
 
If it oscillates.. it is visually more random, so as the ground glass gets slower you dont see the "wax on, wax off" grain effect of the grain.. it moves up and down and round and round so it mimics real film more accurately.

Its exactly like when you buy a random orbiting sander for painting the old Chevy.. orbiting is better because it doesn't leave the swirls.
 
Jarred Land said:
Its exactly like when you buy a random orbiting sander for painting the old Chevy.. orbiting is better because it doesn't leave the swirls.
Click to expand...
you know I've thought that exact thought about a million times :undecided :laugh:
 
The Mini35 has a circular movement. However, the closer part of the GG to the moving arm moves on a circle while the opposite side describes an ellipse.
Draw two horizontal circles, connect them with a line in the middle, split the diff (that would be the holding point of the arm) and imagine the left circle spinning, while the right one moves around. I made this mechanism in July 2004 and I found it unsuitable for a Fresnel type-focusing screen because of the above-described effect. For a GG is more than appropriate because a GG has an uniform grain structure on the whole surface, but the Fresnel screen has the “built in” lens, which requires a "very circular" motion (just enough to obtain a motion blur of the grains (on the matte side) while avoiding an excess of "of axes" movement of the lens.
Might shoot a video to exemplify the diff (if need be).
 
Defintition loss with 35mm Adaptor

Defintition loss with 35mm Adaptor

:shocked: Is there considerable loss of defintion with the use of these 35mm adapators?

I would imagine so for when we were working in film effects and we were farced to use "areal image printing ' it was a compromise .:cry:
The comparision test on line definition with a staright up dvx lens would be interesting .:thumbup:
Any refrence to line chart-definition test would help .:thumbup:
I am especially concerned about this if I or a client are getting excited by what looks like the "film look " via 35m adaptor in a small monitor and then when the same image goes to large screen the definition loss is so great even at 35ft throw that there is a presentation crisis :cry:
Thanks to ANYONE for an answer or a link to material that deals with this concern .
Cheers
Bruce
 
Thanks

Thanks

guskersthecat said:
http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/GS400?full=1

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/guskers35?full=1

These are full res EIA1956 with and without the "Guskers35" adapter attached. I've done some fairly extensive testing with GG's and this is typical. I've yet to see an EIA1956 like this from any other adapters....so this is hardly conclusive.
Click to expand...
:beer: :shocked:
Thanks!
This is immediatly seen as perceptable difference .
The adaptors are nice tools but i am advised to beware and test IF there
is an ultimate screening venue involved with presentation of a product done
WITh
or WITHOUT - these adaptors .
Thanks again
\Bruce
 
Here's a few more posted by Ted West at dvino:

http://www.digital-west.com/adapter

They will give you an idea of the hit from the M2/3 and Letus. There is some distortion evident with both of these.

The res charts don't tell the whole story though....this frame grab was done with my setup. The pics are untouched:

http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/coarsepl?full=1
and
http://www.fortvir.net/gallery/album05/vlcsnap_308810?full=1

I did up a DVD and viewed the footage on my 51" HDTV...which really shows the flaws...and I must admit that the close up shots were quite compelling. One thing's for sure, if you're doing panoramic scene type shots, the adapter really should be removed. Dan Diaconu has demonstrated that digital stills actually looked better from his adapter, than from the cam...which I've yet to corroborate. From my research and views of test footage, a carefull analysis of bokeh quality in out of focus areas, and grain patterns should be considered as well. There is some logic to the argument that DV compression on different cams may result in different effects in the bokeh area of a frame. I find some of the grain patterns I've seen quite distracting.

So yes, I'd say there's plenty of evidence to support the "try before you film out" approach.
 
I have an MPIC ordered for an Andromeda/DVX with the obvious intend to obtain a film out. That should be an interesting test.
As far as comparison and testing goes, I have the pics to demo that the footage from MPIC/GS200 IS sharper than the camcorder can do by itself:
Sorry for the repost of these (over one year old) pics:
MPIC + Nikkor4/200 + GS200:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0485?full=1
GS200 :
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0486?full=1
The... apparent grain on both images must be "noise" from the CCD (not enough light)

There is no "magic" involved. The camcorder can't handle a high contrast image and the GG/screen attenuates the high contrast acting as a translator between real life light and what the CCD can handle. Further; the "sharpening circuit" triggers between high contrasting surfaces reducing the resolution in HALF!
Think rez chart down to last theoretical lines that could be reproduced:
White line to be reproduced on a single row of pixels. The adjacent row of pixel will not show the actual next black line but the ghost of the previous bright white line!
Half resolution? Yes! That’s why I suggested a while ago a Grey/White rez chart (or black/gray) instead of B/W to avoid the high contrast.

As far as contraptions goes, most of the poor resolution comes from a few factors:
Thickness of the diffusing medium (gg), how plane the movement is, achromatic lens used, mounting distance GG/camcorder and zoom position. Other factors to influence:
Glass quality (filters), mechanical means to position all elements on the optical axes of the system (how squared all optics are) and.... the end user (to work around the problems).
 
holy crap dan, i didnt think your adapter was THAT sharp!
i too will be looking forward to results of the andromeda system on an mpic.
 
#29.

curious, has anyone done a comparison between the mpic and the p+s? considering they're relatively closer in price than any of the other adapters out there.
 
@Dan
i just saw the pictures of the mpic/XL2or1 combo, why didn´t you mount the adapter directly to the camera body, I mean a detachable lens probably is the main selling point of the canon...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top