SGPro setup - help!

O

Oedipax

Well-known member
Okay, got my SGPro in the mail today. At the risk of making myself look like a noob, I've spent about 90 minutes on this so far and I'm still having some problems getting it all set up. I know that once I figure out the way it all fits together, I won't have problems assembling it in the future. But right now, the pictures and isntructions on the SGPro website simply are not cutting it. Anyone with an SGPro who can help out, a million thanks...

Here's where I'm getting stuck. Based on the instructions, I'm assuming that I don't need to alter the shims to get the vertical height correct on the rails (I'm using a DVX100 and ordered it that way, and the instructions imply it will come configured for that). Vertically, when I put it on the rails with the camera, it looks pretty good.

But the horizontal alignment is a bit off. I'm a bit lost on how to get the sliding plate to adjust to the left and right. I can't seem to find the bolt the instructions mention for doing this, and I definitely didn't receive any washers which are also mentioned. I might be confused, but it sounds like I need to take the sliding plate off the rails and do something to it there. This means redoing the vertical shims as well. Okay, no big deal I guess. I already took the sliding plate off, messed about and couldn't figure out what to do next, then put it back together and slid it back on and the horizontal alignment is now a lot worse than it was before. I'm not sure why, since if you're screwing the plate and shims into the center hole (as is specified for the DVX) it should be pretty much the same every time.

Anyway... if someone could talk me through this part, I would be really grateful for your help. I would e-mail Wayne but he's out of town until the 29th apparently. Definitely can't let it wait that long, I'm dying to get started on this thing. And cursing my low level of sophistication when it comes to assembling stuff, it seems. :violin:
 
Well wayne should have sent you an email on how to set it up. I believe you will have to adjust the camera rig to the following setup. The new version requires you to unscrew using the existing allen wrench and rescrewing to the corresponding holes. I just got mine today and it took me to setup on the A1 about 20minutes. Much more stable that the letus35 would every be on my rig. PS I mean 20 minutes at the most to setup. tops.

.http://sgpro.co.uk/DVX100_top.jpg[/url]
http://sgpro.co.uk/DVX100_back.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes, I got the email - but it only consists of those two pictures plus the link to the old rev. 2 instructions...

The main thing that's confusing me is that in this image ( http://www.sgpro.co.uk/pages/setuptut/06small.jpg ) there is a third, larger hole seen in the shims, I'm assuming to be used for the horizontal alignment adjustment (the "one 8mm bolt" referenced in the instructions). My shims only have the two smaller holes on each side.

I went by the hardware store and picked up some washers that fit the SGPro (as pictured here: http://www.sgpro.co.uk/pages/setuptut/10small.jpg ). At the moment my plan is to use two bolts, one for each hole, passing through the adjustable opening on the rails, then secured at the bottom with the washers.

There's nothing wrong per se with the instructions, just that I'm not used to doing this sort of thing, and I could've probably used a little more detail or more pictures just to double check I'm doing what I think I'm supposed to be doing. Now that I have the washers I'm going to see if I can get it all lined up.
 
if you look in the picture you posted, theres 2 holes for screws on the shims. you can bolt them inplace to the baseplate, and they are even ofset at the right distance to make a DVX/HVX line up properly. just use teh set of holes thats to the right side ofthe base plate.

once its assembles it shoult take about 35 seconds to put you camera on and off the adapter. Thats it. just slide it in, screw on the acromat, zoom in/ focus, shoot.
 
Timur, thanks for the reply - my internet connection was down most of the evening but the good news is I got everything set up now. I ended up using a different set of shims with a hole in the center, then threading that through one of the horizontal openings on the rails (so I could fine tune the alignment just a bit). Tried it again and it slid on and fit perfectly!

My only remaining set up now is getting it all configured with my Spiderbrace. I'll tweak that some more tomorrow.

Also, I'm definitely in the market now for a small LCD to monitor on! How is the Varizoom 7" for SD? I think Smettli uses it, so it can't be that bad. I can't really shell out extra for the Marshall right now.
 
For SD the Varizoom is fine...But if you think about going into HD within the next 2 years then you should invest into monitor that does both. I've heard some good reviews from Ikan 8000hd but just for focusing and aligning up the shot. But if you can do it..I get the Marshall/Nebtek. In fact Nebtek is due to come out with a new model so the Marshall that I use might drop a little in price soon. But if you really like the varizoom..I have a used one laying around that I am thinking of selling just pm me.
 
Wow, I'm looking at some of the footage I just shot and am really blown away by how amazing the quality is! Perfect edge to edge sharpness, great bokeh, etc.

The only thing that's really bothering me at the moment is I feel like there's a little bit of light fall-off near the edges, probably owing to my not having figured out exactly how much to zoom in yet. I've been shooting at around Z72-73 on the DVX, which looks good for most shots, but once in a while you still feel the darkness at the edges. Anyway, I'll get it hooked up to something that can underscan the whole image and figure it out once and for all!

Just to clarify, I don't really mean vignetting at the four corners (I pretty much have that eliminated) but a slight but perceivable decrease in brightness on the left and right edges of the frame.
 
Oedipax said:
The only thing that's really bothering me at the moment is I feel like there's a little bit of light fall-off near the edges, probably owing to my not having figured out exactly how much to zoom in yet. I've been shooting at around Z72-73 on the DVX, which looks good for most shots, but once in a while you still feel the darkness at the edges. Anyway, I'll get it hooked up to something that can underscan the whole image and figure it out once and for all!

Just to clarify, I don't really mean vignetting at the four corners (I pretty much have that eliminated) but a slight but perceivable decrease in brightness on the left and right edges of the frame.
Click to expand...

Yea, that happens with photo lenses. You usually have to stop down to around f/4 or f/5.6 for it to go away.
 
Hmm.... What lenses are you using? The quality and charachteristics of your glass is what makes all the difference. Theres a reason hollywood doesnt use Nikkor primes.....
 
It could be the lens, certainly - although why wouldn't it also show up in still photos made with it?

It's a 50mm f/1.4 Nikon MF, AI-S.

The only other lenses I've got right now (an 18-55 and a 55-200) I got when I bought the Nikon D50, which was before I was really thinking about using a 35mm adapater, so they are DX lenses and also quite slow (f/3.5-5.6 and f/4-5.6).

Just for the heck of it, I tried them outside in the middle of the day yesterday, and I had to zoom in much further (as expected) to fill the whole frame, plus the light loss was almost comical. With everything wide-open (the still lens, the DVX lens, no ND) I still had to use a 1/24 shutter just to get a halfway usable exposure! And the focus rings on those lenses really suck. But I wasn't expecting those lenses to work, it's not a big deal. I'm in the market for more fast primes.
 
TimurCivan said:
Hmm.... What lenses are you using? The quality and charachteristics of your glass is what makes all the difference. Theres a reason hollywood doesnt use Nikkor primes.....
Click to expand...
Well they breathe.

In other words, with still camera lenses vs. cinema lenses, the image may expand or contract slightly when changing focus, i.e., breathe ...

... but the quality, once locked in and focused should be the same shouldn't it?

I mean the resolution / size is the same as 35mm film and 4 or 5 times the size of resolution that the HVX shoots.

Right? Or not right?
 
Zeiss Superspeeds, or Cooke S4's are like 3x sharper than "nikkors" or CAnon FD's, over the whole range of their apetures. sure the nikkors wil be sharp, at F11, but at wide open they are not so much, the cine lenses are higher performing across the range.
 
Oedipax said:
so they are DX lenses and also quite slow (f/3.5-5.6 and f/4-5.6).

Just for the heck of it, I tried them outside in the middle of the day yesterday, and I had to zoom in much further (as expected) to fill the whole frame, plus the light loss was almost comical. With everything wide-open (the still lens, the DVX lens, no ND) I still had to use a 1/24 shutter just to get a halfway usable exposure! And the focus rings on those lenses really suck. But I wasn't expecting those lenses to work, it's not a big deal. I'm in the market for more fast primes.
Click to expand...

During midday, you should have needed both NDfilters. Somethign is wrong. I've shot out doors, midday, at F8.0 and still needed the 1/8th ND on. Something is definitly wrong.
 
He was testing dx lenses.
Don't they have no manual aperture and are generally closed down all the way when not on a body with the proper electronics?
But yeah. I've still shot f 22 during the day and been just fine.
 
Matty_g said:
He was testing dx lenses.
Don't they have no manual aperture and are generally closed down all the way when not on a body with the proper electronics?
But yeah. I've still shot f 22 during the day and been just fine.
Click to expand...

That might be the problem - I was under the impression that the DX lenses defaulted to wide open in the absence of electronic controls, but if they're stopped down to their max (f/22 I guess) that would explain a lot!

Anyway, after some further testing it seems like the falloff on my 50mm f/1.4 Nikon is more prevalent at 1.4 than at 2 or 2.8. When I get some time (the semester just started, so things have been a little hectic) I'll try and get a nice, evenly lit white wall and shoot some tests to figure it out more.

It's pretty hard to notice the falloff at f/1.4 if I'm zoomed in around Z74 or so. It's annoying insofar as that, with no falloff, I could probably zoom out to Z70 or Z71 and not see any vignetting, but it's not a big deal.

Edit: Just did a quick check on my D50 body with the DX lenses: at 200mm, the 55-200 zoom will actually go as low as f/32! At 55 it's f/22 for the smallest aperture. Same story on the 18-55 - f/22 at 18mm, f/32 at 55mm.
 
Last edited:
TimurCivan said:
Hmm.... What lenses are you using? The quality and charachteristics of your glass is what makes all the difference. Theres a reason hollywood doesnt use Nikkor primes.....
Click to expand...

They were apparently used on the new Bourne film:
http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?magazine/0708/stoo.htm~top.main_hp

(From the article)
"I found two Nikon digital lenses and sent them to ARRI in Munich, where they were transformed into lenses that would work with the ARRI film cameras. One was a 28-70mm and the other was an 80-200mm, both T2.8 because they had to be fast. I’d say that 80 percent of the first unit photography ended up being shot on those two lenses--" DP Oliver Wood

I'm guessing that Arri probably refitted the focus rings and measured them for t-stops too besides giving them PL mounts.
 
thoes are new lenses though, im reffering to the old Nikkormat lenses. the new glassi decent, though i'd be surprised if they ddint breathe a little. but breathing isnt the end of the world.
 
Oedipax and Timur:

Maybe the reason it was so dark is because the DX lenses are projecting a smaller image and thus less light is hitting the ground glass.

Also, I see what you mean about some older lenses having issues, Timur. But It is pretty cool news for 35 adapter users that an $800 piece of glass like the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is good enough for a big-budget feature film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top