P+S Technik--yeah again. . .

T

thisiswells

Retired
The way I get the mini35 adapter is that it works best at open apertures down to T4.
I understand that if it is used at aperture below T4 then it gets dark around the edges
and also the vortex from hell on the 300 series system.

So, if that's the case then it really isn't mimicing the D-O-F characteristics of the same
lens on a film camera. That doesn't mean it still isn't a good tool... I'm trying to eat
through some of the marketing speak on the device. It is obviously a fantastic thing
to have and many have gotten great results--I'm not dissing it--just trying to nail down this singular detail.

Jarred, any thoughts? You had one of those to review, right?

Thanks,
brian wells
 
I agree with that assessment. It gives a shallow DOF true, but that's it. You can't mimick a film camera set to f8. While shallow DOF is a great tool at times it shouldn't always be shallow! I've sort of become disenchanted with these mechanisms of late. If someone could find a really good non moving diffuse material then you could use most and f-stop.
 
That thing has got to be one of the biggest hunks of junk I've ever come across. I mean $600 for a 4x3 piece of diffusion attached to some PVC pipe connected to C stands. You could use your own c-stands and make the rest for under $100.

Even if you were to make it yourself I still think it's a dumb idea. Something about it just rubs me the wrong way. Anyone actually ever use one?
 
seems to work pretty well for whats its designed for. ..and our very own Barry Green invented it. you should ask him about it.
 
Barry made that? Talk about foot-in-mouth.:undecided

I don't know. I just see so many people desperately worried about the technical aspects of filmmaking. Yet I see so many under-developed ideas, and crappy stories/ acting.

Sorry, it's my new tyrade I'm on ever since all the mini 35 adapters.
 
..certainly agreed. sometimes i think that people feel that if they get all the technicals right, then the film will be good. unfortunately that is not the case. it doesnt matter how well you tell a joke ...if it simply isnt funny.
 
I won't knock Barry's invention or whatever...I think it's a novel idea for us DIY indie's, but whoever is running the show now should be God damn ashamed of themselves. Selling this product for over $500 dollars? GOOD LORD!! I think it's time for another DVXuser revolution. Redrock, start making one of these screens and selling it for about 2-3 hundred dollars. Add that to the upcoming microfocus, micromatte, and micro35 line. Call it....the *Microscreen*.

Seriously though.....Over 500 bux for some opaque plastic? Come on!!

~reservoir~
 
thisiswells,

No, I was refering to the material used for the screen in a 35mm adapter. Since it would have no moving parts (assuming a grainless, decently diffuse material could be found) you could crank down the iris without seeing motion artifacts from the moving ground glass.
 
The other advantage of the mini35 is that it takes on the characteristics of the lens, such as the warmth of Cooke S4's.
 
Jarred--Thanks.

For clarification that IndieToolbox screen package sells for $540.00.
That includes two densities of screen material and a frame for them which mounts to a stand.
They told me in an email that because of the six week backorder, they would offer a discount.
Wasn't in the market so I never inquired what kind of discount they offered. Sounds good,though.

brian wells
 
I invented it a couple of years ago, and sold the product line to them. I have no input on pricing or manufacturing, or anything else with it anymore (i.e., no royalties, no ongoing involvement at all), so as for setting the price, manufacturing, etc., that's entirely in their domain. As with all cine accessories, the price of materials isn't the only thing to consider, manufacturing and shipping low-quantity goods usually means the price is a lot higher than the raw cost of materials. But like I said, I have *nothing* to do or say about pricing, marketing, or really anything else, it is their product line now.

All I did was come up with the material that makes for a completely invisible-to-the-camera surface that makes everything behind it look like it's actually out of focus, optically properly (i.e., the further away from the surface, the more out of focus it gets, etc). With it you could have the camera on F/16, two feet away from your subject, and still have a shallow background. Admittedly it took some work to get the best results (you need to control reflections, and it needs to be a big frame in order to allow you flexibility in framing, so it's physically inconvenient to wrangle into place, plus you have to continually clean it to keep dust off it) but it does work, and work well. I thought it was a neat idea, but it takes work to get the best results.
 
After hearing that explanation I have a different view on it now. It looked just like diffusion material, it didn't seem to be anything special.

I still say I've got way too much gear to be carting one of those around as well. (I would have used a winkie smilie here, but we don't have them anymore.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top