New 35 PICS

I have a question about this too. If you were to use 72mm components throughout the entire assembly (72mm spacer tube holding GG, 72mm macros, etc) and only used a small stepdown ring for the point where you attach the lens mount, would you get better light transmission? Would it also improve light fall-off as the macro lenses are bigger? I would imagine that this would be the case, but I've never built one of these. I am EXTREMELY interested in doing so, and this seems to be the easiest design I have seen yet. Any thoughts on this would be helpful.

Edit: I also noticed that the enormousapparatus.com setup has +1, +2 and +4 CU's in there as well. But it seems like those are ommitted from your design. What would be the purpose of the +1, +2, +4 if they were added into the design?
 
Last edited:
Was really impressed with all the footage, but you seem to have removed all the information on how to build it!
 
twocik23,

I also want to know what GG you used to make ur adapter, and if so, I would like to purchase one please.
 
BUMP! :D Oh, and another question. How difficult would it be to create a vibrating GG solution such as the Letus35 uses? I've read posts from last year indicating that a pager motor could be used for this purpose. I think this design is REALLY good, and cheap to boot, but I think that if you could vibrate the GG it would be even better. Any thoughts? Anyone?
 
What's up guys. I've been away for a little bit. But the GG is a 1000 & 1500 grit .
 
Last edited:
Man, your footage looks good. Congratulations. I hope you comercialize it. It looks better than the other "cheaper adapters" that are being comercialized right now. Ovjamaica posted a very interesting question about using 72mm material and I'd like to hear the answer.
 
Thank you for the comments. This was a test of my 35 and my new stabilizer I just finished about three weeks ago. I know it doesn't look to sturdy, mainly because I broke my left thumb the night before. So anyway, in a few weeks I will post some more footage. not bad for a broken thumb though.
 
Do you have any low light footage? These adapters usualy don't handle low light very well and it would be interesting to see it.
 
Hi holyzoo

Just curious why use say to use a Beattie screen instead of what I'm using now?

Most of the clips and the screen grabs were shot in natural light conditions using no reflectors or key lights. Just what the day had to offer.

Did you see anything wrong with the footage or the screen grabs?
 
twocik23 said:
Just curious why use say to use a Beattie screen instead of what I'm using now? Did you see anything wrong with the footage or the screen grabs?
Click to expand...

A Beattie screen will give you less light loss, less visible grain, better clarity, and a sharper image.
 
Ive never been wanting a 35mm adapter unless it was the mini35 of some sorts, the x7 DOF never apealed to me, to drastic.
 
holyzoo said:
What x7 DOF are you referring to?
Click to expand...

with an interchangable lense it could be different, but I know that when you slap on a gg and a 35mm lense over a normal video lense the depth of feild isnt that of a normal 35mm lense but the two lenses together make the DOF 7 times as deep, mabye not exactly 7 but still its not athestetic 35mm DOF.
 
As far as grain, light loss, clarity and sharpness. I not having any problems with it, but I would like to try the beattie screen. Do you have a link? Thanks for the info
 
myfriendimage said:
with an interchangable lense it could be different, but I know that when you slap on a gg and a 35mm lense over a normal video lense the depth of feild isnt that of a normal 35mm lense but the two lenses together make the DOF 7 times as deep, mabye not exactly 7 but still its not athestetic 35mm DOF.
Click to expand...

Im not exactly sure on why, Im not a 35mm fanatic, it might have todo with the light or the lenses.
 
myfriendimage said:
with an interchangable lense it could be different, but I know that when you slap on a gg and a 35mm lense over a normal video lense the depth of feild isnt that of a normal 35mm lense but the two lenses together make the DOF 7 times as deep, mabye not exactly 7 but still its not athestetic 35mm DOF.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting into this in detail, but what you're saying is false. What you achieve is the same DOF as 35mm film production. The challenge *may* be for the designer of the adapter/imager to make sure they don't crop too much of the image by zooming in or using too powerful of a macro lens.

What you are describing is the effect of merely adapting a 35mm lens to the front of a camcorder's lens. This results in merely seeing a fraction of the actual image and hence turning any lens into a telephoto, super tele or beyond. This is NOT what's going on *here*.

For reference see what happens when the Canon EF adapter is used on the XL2 using a 35mm lens - http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article10.php

Now look at a wide angle 35mm lens used on a proper 35mm imaging device.

http://www.holyzoo.com/content/hvx200/screengrabs/HVX200_35mm_024.jpg That's with the camera about a 1.5 feet away. Yes a wide angle.

I'm sure this has been debated to death somewhere on here. It sure has a long time ago on DVinfo. Now pretty much everyone knows the scoop. Now you do too. :)
 
Well yea the mini 35, what a beast. I almost bought one until I found out how much the lenses were. I mean 10,000 for just the adapter, then 5,000 to 16,000 for a lens. That's alot of money, especially directed to the indie film makers. It just seems stupid all that money when you could just buy a real film camera. But I've seen film companies use them for test runs to save money and time on film. I thought that was pretty smart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top