Yes I'm afraid I have another adaptor.

Just read a few pages back on this thread. It will work (looks like the kit I bought), but there is a chance of getting slight aberration. Nothing like when using the Asian +10. Chances are that it would be fine, but there is still that chance... keeps me up at night.
 
Mike,

I have that and it's gathering dust because when compared to an achromat, the regular diopter (especially the +10) looks like some kind of dreamy flashback effect. I might use it for such in a music video or in a commercial, but for narrative, you want it to look clean..

-Jay
 
Ed, Snod, and Marlene (if you are still in town...)

What DVXs do you have? I've been following your threads and advice, but it would be helpful to put it in perspective as far as near focus goes. I have a regular DVX100, do you have the regular model, or the A or B versions?

Thanks,

-jay
 
I have the 100B. I added some space between the CO+7 and the GG so i'm guessing that my design would work on most cams. I will be setting up to test it with several cameras in the next month for the Snod35 DIY DVD.
 
macro lenses

macro lenses

Jay,

Since you're saying the macros from that kit collect dust, do you think I should just use a 2" spacer b/w the CO+7 and gg instead (even though the adaptor will be longer)?

Mike
 
I received the Canon C screen today. There is a big ugly circle in the middle of it.... not to mention a rectangle on the condenser side. Bummer. I'm ordering some 3 and 5 micron aluminum oxide powder tomorrow to make my own GG. If... I mean when I get it to work, I will be adding a how-to on the Snod35 DIY DVD. This needle in the hay stack search for the perfect GG is getting old. Time to go to war.
 
DVX100A here. And I wouldnt like my adapter that long, that is why I just ordered the Canon 500D close up (+2 achromat) to bring it in closer.

When it arrives I will do a res chart comparison between:

1) CO +7 with +2 asian macro (my current setup)
2) CO +7 with Canon 500D
3) CO +7 no closeup and extended farther (snodarts-marlenes)

5-7 business days so hopefully by friday.

Ed
 
Nice Ed. Can't wait. I'm pretty sure I will end up getting it. I'de like for my adapter to be shorter.
 
Im sorry to hear that the screen had a circle in the middle. Many people on ebay sell old camera parts and dont know what screens are what.

Snodart, this guy who sold it didnt describe it correctly. What you got may be a C screen yes, but it looks like a C for a A series camera NOT an F series like the auction said.

He stated for F1. A C screen for an F1 has no rangfinder and is plain matte- like he described and like Canon's Focusing Screen Guide states: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...sources/SLRs/ae1pgrm/html/issues/srnchart.pdf

Its up to you but you should ask for your money back. He should have stated C screen for A series and not F- big difference.
 
John J. Heppe said:
semi-off topic...

i flew up to NYC to work on a production and was tasked with building a static adapter for the hvx. after searching manhattan endlessly for a d screen (and trying what seemed like hundreds of plastic substitutes), i gave up and bought a beattie screen in person from bhphoto (which by the way, is filled to the brim with employees that have VERY bad attitude problems)...

anyways, as i was sitting at the producer's house preparing to make a $100 mistake, to my dismay i found a perfect substitute for the aol case in the form of a VHS clamshell (harry potter and chamber of freakin secrets)...i cut out an unscratched section of plastic, threw it in the adapter and it works beautifully...

i've only done interior/night tests so, but everything looks perfect. however, the wider the lens i put on, the more apparent it is that there is going to be a very disgusting hot spot in the center...any suggestions for correcting this?
Click to expand...

Hotspots come from not having a condenser infront of your focusing surface, in this case the VHS plastic. When the SLR lens focuses all the light onto the focal plane (your matte surface) it should go through a condenser to more evenly distribute the light.

here is another one of my cheesy microsoft paint graphics :)

condenser.GIF
 
So do these professional focusing screens come with a built in condensor? Or have I missed something? How does Marlene use her adaptor with the AOL screen if there's no condensor?

Also, thanks so Snodart, I know I can't buy that Canon screen. Are the screens we need for our adaptors still impossible to find? Can you buy them at B&H? And has anyone tracked down where you can get these AOL cases?

Mike
 
Barry_Green said:
Are you trying to match the look of 35mm movies or not? If you are, you want to match the 24x18 frame size.

If you're just going for an arbitrary frame size to try to get the shallowest DOF possible, then use whatever. But if you want to match the field of view and DOF of 35mm movie film (which is the design goal of the mini35, and frankly should be the design goal of any 35mm adapter IMO) then use 24x18.
Click to expand...
I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Are we going for the most
useable image area, for instance 35x24mm, with the CO+7? If this is true then
what level of magnification would we need for 24x18mm to fill the frame?

... on a DVX.
 
Mike,

I think image quality is what's most important. It'll be buggin you in the edit suite if you are soft on the edges. Just make sure you can support the long tube on the front of your camera.
 
Im not sure what the deal is...After watching the test footage, 96 pages ago, It felt like I was watching a $200 Handycam with SDOF...Isnt the overall goal of a 35mm adapter not only to provide great SDOF, but also to not lose a bunch of resolution? Plus (probably because of the lens) the color range as been decreased significantly. I guess thats why the PS Tecknic and M2 are so expensive? Can someone inform me of why this "looks so good?"

I dont mean to sound like a jerk, I just dont understand...Any insight is appreciated.
 
InvisionProductions said:
Im not sure what the deal is...After watching the test footage, 96 pages ago, It felt like I was watching a $200 Handycam with SDOF...Isnt the overall goal of a 35mm adapter not only to provide great SDOF, but also to not lose a bunch of resolution? Plus (probably because of the lens) the color range as been decreased significantly. I guess thats why the PS Tecknic and M2 are so expensive? Can someone inform me of why this "looks so good?"

I dont mean to sound like a jerk, I just dont understand...Any insight is appreciated.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and think it is a very valid question.

I think that a good portion of the test footage was done hand-held and with no lighting set ups, etc. In most cases the test footage seems to be not a test of perfect imagery, but tests for things like proper focus, chromatic aberration, grain, etc.

Also, I don't think that this thread is the end all of DIY adapters (though it seems to be the most informative). I think the true purpose of this thread (Ed correct me if I'm wrong) is to help people get started making their own adapters. Since the beginning there have been great advancements from Ed's original version and also some branching out into custom designs. Some issues still need to be resolved of course. In my opinion, the point of the thread is to help the DIY adapter evolve into that which can produce images that meet or exceed the available professional adapters.

Anyway, that is my take on it.
 
Yep, basically what snodart said. Now I may sound a bit like a jerk here too, but I will try to keep it as constructive as possible.

Invision- some people think it looks good, some people think it looks like crap, and some people think the whole 35mm adapter thing is way over-rated. To each his/her own I say. And this is not just this design, but all the other DOF adapters out there as well, from the P+S to the Pepsi35 (no offense to the Pepsi35 which looks great considering its made from a pop-can) :)

Re: resolution- well I have seen what my v2 adapter footage looks like on a live production monitor (and not a compressed 320x240 WMV) so I am frankly not worried whether or not you feel the unit makes video from a $3500 camera look like a $200 cam's footage.

What you saw in those first tests were improvised “off the hip” test shoots with no concern with lighting setups, framing, and all the other important steps in operating a camera on a set. Then the un CCd footage was edited, and then exported as a compressed windows media file. So yes, before I give this adapter to a DP on set, I (and others) are going to test our refinements on things like, our cats, or cans of WD40, or whatever is in-front of the lens.

Of course any time you put all that glass in front of your lens, it can reduce sharpness. Some are worse than others. Some feel that the slight diffusion that many adapters give actually add an organic feel to the footage that feels more like the grain in 16mm reversal film. That it balances out the “harshness” inherent to video images. And then some people don’t :)

This thread/design was just to get the ball rolling- people who were interested started modifying the idea to improve resolution: different screens, better glass...all in an effort to make the design their own.

Invision- if you think that the web footage of my tests looks like it came from a $200 camera, that’s cool, it your opinion. This probably isn’t the thing for you then. If you feel that other designs will give you better-looking footage, by all means buy the one that looks best to you.

Or you can say “I don’t see what the big deal is, looks like $200 footage to me” and get out there and build a better one...and partner... yall can show us how its done. :happy:

Ed
 
Last edited:
Snodart & Edwierdo, thanks so much for your positive comments. I understand exactly what your saying, and now understand much more along the lines of the adapter. I really appreciate your comments and they have helped me alot. Thanks guys!
 
hey ed

didn't you modify your cavision rod support with a strap? i just got mines in and i faintly remeber a while back you made a mod

thanks
 
yes I did, cavision makes a lens support piece but it wasnt long enough to reach the adapter and it had no strap to keep if from moving around. So I decided to make my own:

cavision.jpg


They are tough to make since I have to cut them out of aluminum by hand (I wish we had a mill). I made up 12 and I sold them all. If I get enough people interested, I will make up another batch.

I cut them to the specs of Cavision's front support so I cant say they will work with other rail systems.

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top