MovieTUBE!

Norm_Li

Norm_Li

Well-known member
Hey all,

I have received the MovieTUBE flyer and demo DVD!

It looks very good and certainly has the DOF of 35mm.
They used a PD150 so it still has a video-ish quality but I think coupled with a DVX or XL2 perhaps, it should look very very good.

I have asked them if I can encode some video to show people on the web and I am waiting for a response.

I think it has the exact same capability as the Mini35 except that it boasts absolutely no light loss so even slow lenses can be utilized with the device.

Norm
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

Pretty expensive.

The MOVIEtube LT is 7950.00 Euro ($10,583.42 USD).

The MOVIEtube Pro will cost 12350.00 Euro ($16,440.91 USD).
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

Yeah, that's true. The Pro version coupled with the DVX is about the same as the SDX900 I believe.
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

yup. And honestly, 2/3 inch chips provide a decent amount of creative flexibility.
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

[quote author=Shaw link=board=Links;num=1103427077;start=0#4 date=12/18/04 at 19:36:03]For that much money I'd just go buy myself a higher level camera :-/[/quote]

For sure. As groovy as the DVX is, 20k for camera and adapter is silliness. This is a rental item for sure.
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

Did you just email them for the demo DVD or...? I'd love to see it. BTW its physically impossible for it to not have ANY light loss. Perhaps its less than the mini35 but NONE? No way.
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

Yeah, just saying what it says in the flyer but there definitely has to be light loss no matter what.

Yep, just email them for it!

Norm
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

I look forward to the footage. I'm really confused as to what market they think they're hitting with increasing the price of the mini35. I mean, the mini35 is astoundingly overpriced as it evidenced by all the homemade DOF adapters. Although I have yet to see a mini35 go up against a homemade version.
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

What a dissapointment, another device that's way out of the price range for most independants. Renting is always an option, if you can find a place that rents them.

I wish someone would just market an affordable <$500 DOF adapter for the indies, doesn't have to be perfect, as long as it does the job.
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

Ya know.. I was just thinking to myself the other day:

"Self, I would really like to purchase, the mini35, but it really doesn't cost enough."

It would appear that I have now found the solution to my conundrum.
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

[quote author=TC link=board=Links;num=1103427077;start=0#12 date=12/19/04 at 22:31:25] ... it really doesn't cost enough. ... I have now found the solution ...[/quote]

Nice TC! Now THAT was funny ;D.
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

Bret:

no light loss impossible? Actually depends on what you mean.

Of course passing light thru any optical system causes losses due to absorption by the materials and surface reflections.

But if one means that the exposure remains the same as using the camera alone ( as on a set lit for f2.8 on your meter) allowing one to shoot at f 2.8 on your camera after you add the adapter, that is possible.

When you reduce a 35mm cine frame to the size of 1/3 " chips you concentrate the light and realize a gain of several stops in image brightness, which would be offset by the losses caused by the "ground glass" and relay optics.

So if the gain exactly equalled the loss, in a practical, exposure comparison, there would "be no loss" in that sense.

Bill Turner
Schneider Optics
Century Division
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

Bill-
Understood. In fact I've talked about that very thing before in similar threads. Unfortunately this is not how the Movietube works. It does NOT focus the light down to a smaller size. When it comes to the idea of a focusing screen and the DVX lens it works in the same way as the mini35.

A example of a adapter that works like you decribed was made by Zeiss. It maintains the FOV of 35mm cine lenses on a 2/3" camera. However since they do not use any form of a focusing screen to "rephotograph" the image it does NOT maintain the FOV. But like you mentioned it did see a stop increase. Nice to have for night/available light shoots but not for the price....over $20K.

P.S. Hey Bill we want a 2.35 anamorphic lens! Is it too late with the 16:9 sensors poping up?
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

Brett,

I don't want to get into a protracted debate, but when the video camera "photographs" the 35mm size image with these devices (ground glass or not) it is reducing that image to the width of the video format.

If the image on the ground glass is of sufficient brightness it could appear the same as the scene without the device in place to the camera resulting in the same exposure setting on the video camera with and without the device.

re: 2.35 or "Cinemascope"

Brett: while I am sure you know this, others may not

Essentially the same ratio (1.33) is required to convert 16:9 to 2.35 as is required to convert 4:3 to 16:9. This is the reason that we continue to work on a high quality, focusing 1.33X anamorphic in the face of the "native" 16:9 cameras that are appearing (much later than I anticipated-- thought this would happen a couple years ago)

4:3 = 1.33 16:9 = 1.78 1.78x1.33= 2.37 or close enough to 2.35

My suspicion is that both for video filmakers who want a cinemascope look and video makers who, when widescreen TV's are the norm, want the "cool" letterboxed look for commercials , music video's that 16:9 now gives on 4:3 will create a demand, tho perhaps limited for a 1.33X anamorphic going forward.

If what you desire is an anamorphic to squeeze 2.35 onto 1.33 that requires at 1.77X anamorphic and designing and building a unit that powerful that could deal with the wide angle end of the video camera would be very difficult -- and perhaps not practical -- and is something we have no plans to do.

Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

I understand what your saying. From what I learned its the opposite but considering your extensive background in optics it would be foolish for me to not take a closer look at this. I guess it just doesnt make sense to me. This is the way I see it. Once the image is created on the GG its like any other image that you could photograph. With that said lets simplify the gg image and call it a printed image. If I have a room lit at a given level and photograph a poster size of that image vs. a 8X10 of that image they are going to appear equally bright when photographed (nevermind the light loss you get with some lenses when you zoom in). Am I right? If so then how is it different if that image is on GG?

If you would like to email your response to me rather than talk any more off subject that would be great. Heres my address:
BErskine@mail.com

Thanks for your input I've learned from you before and in this case I hope you are right because it will be a helpful to the mini35 projects people are making.
 
Re: MovieTUBE!

[quote author=TC link=board=Links;num=1103427077;start=0#12 date=12/19/04 at 22:31:25]Ya know.. I was just thinking to myself the other day:

"Self, I would really like to purchase, the mini35, but it really doesn't cost enough."

It would appear that I have now found the solution to my conundrum.[/quote]

Thats the funniest take I have heard all week; Thanks TC. :) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top