|
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 01:28 PM
|
#871 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 86
|
Noah
I found the alluminium oxyde in a Telescope store, People use this to make mirror. Alain |
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 01:38 PM
|
#872 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 636
|
Alain -- great work. I've got server space to offer for images and footage, if you need either.
email me here: jim@ideaspora.net You may attach the images as you like. - jim
__________________
Realism, anyway, is never exactly the same as reality, and in the cinema it is of necessity faked. -- J-L G |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 01:39 PM
|
#873 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Poplarville, MS
Posts: 453
|
Resolution
Alain: How many lines are you resolving compared to footage without the adapter? ie. Is the resolution acceptable?
I would really like to look at an uncompressed still frame. Do you have any resolution test charts you could shoot? The footage is looking good! Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 01:44 PM
|
#874 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 363
|
Alain, if I read this right... and I might not be... you are using the ring from a UV filter to connect this to your camera?
Sorry but I've tried to read back and my brain just can't hold it all in... :) an explanation of how it connects and even a pic of it connected would be great. Thanks and great work. I'm stunned at the level of work and genius in these threads. |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 02:04 PM
|
#875 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 34
|
Wow alain static sure is the way to go. Couple things in this picture http://www.kheops-tech.com/~ad3d/IMG_2110.jpg
it looks like your uv filter is connected to some other irregular shaped box can you tell us what that is? Also in this photo http://www.kheops-tech.com/~ad3d/parts2.jpg what is the piece you are holding at the bottom left? Last thing i heard a lot of people use fresnel lenses to concentrate the incoming light on the gg do you use that too? Wow whoaw Agus, Alain and everyone else thanks a lot. |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 02:08 PM
|
#876 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Guatemala
Posts: 322
|
I think we could open a new thread for this static solution, which is now really working... !
__________________
Agus35 - the ultimate tool for indie DV filmakers - |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 02:49 PM
|
#877 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: warsaw, poland
Posts: 440
|
maybe new thread?
<<<-- Originally posted by Agus Casse : I think we could open a new thread for this static solution, which is now really working... ! -->>>
let's give the privilege to alain to open the new thread - "alain's static solution... or aldu35..." or whatever he thinks is ok. what do you think? filip |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 03:08 PM
|
#878 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 363
|
YES... I'll second that new thread which will give it a specific place and if there are any other versions to pursue they can remain in here or start their own thread when ready.
|
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 04:47 PM
|
#879 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: WA-USA
Posts: 371
|
do you think this could work with a 16mm Angenieux lens? like this...
__________________
The glory of the World passes by. |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 06:10 PM
|
#880 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 86
|
35mm Adapter Static Aldu35
Lot of pressure on me now. Maybe I should run away.
Ok I will read all this now and try to answer all. As you probably understand already I am french Canadien so I sometime need a dictionnary and it take long for me to answer. :-) Ps: Now what we should do is to start a thread against War and misery around the world and try to find a solution all togeter :-) Alain Dumais |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 06:14 PM
|
#881 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Marquette, Michigan, US
Posts: 14
|
re: Angenieux lens
Yes and no.
It would project an image on the ground glass. The image would be about a quarter the size of the 35mm frame, meaning you would have to zoom in much closer (which will create distortion problems) and have problems with graim on the GG. Also, the DOF of 16mm format lenses is much deeper. The point of this project is to get a shallow DOF. To get a decent 35mm-like DOF you would have to zoom to at least 80mm which means standing WAY back from your subject. One final thing: DO NOT spend $400+ on a lense for this project. I have the same Angenieux lense on one of my 16mm cameras and it is *wonderful*, but definately overkill for use with a video camera. Start of with something close to 50mm and as cheap as possible. |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 07:11 PM
|
#882 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gulf Shores, Alabama
Posts: 57
|
Alain
< Ps: Now what we should do is to start a thread against War and misery around the world and try to find a solution all togeter :-)
Alain Dumais > Your (and everyone else's) best chance of making a difference in the world is through your video. Video that is looking better and better, more like what the general public will readily accept. Paul dvdof.com |
|
|
|
|
January 26th, 2004, 08:05 PM
|
#883 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA.
Posts: 4,477
|
Re:Angenieux.
I second Ryan. As I found out the hard way, the image off the 16mm format Angenieuxs is barely big enough to cover Super16 frame without cropping corners on zoom-through 25-35mm focal length. Good lens but wrong application in this project. Re: Fixed Groundglass. The image files agusday2.jpg and agusday3.jpg at www.dvinfo.net/media/hart were originated from a fixed groundglass (microscope slide) prepared with 300 grade aluminium oxide powder. In the centre hotspot of bright image, there is no grain but in low lit corners there is visible grain. If there is any grain to be seen, setting the SLR lens to as small an aperture as you can will make any grain visible. |
|
|
|
|
January 27th, 2004, 09:47 AM
|
#884 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA.
Posts: 4,477
|
Brainpick time. For the first time I have recorded without inverting the camera. (My ego won out over common sense as I did not want to be asked constantly why I was working the camera upside down.
Inverting the image in post seems to have made some problems, probably related to interlace. I've tried de-interlacing but it does not seems to have made any difference. The .avi playback is fine but DVD-Video is dreadful, with jittering. OS is Windows 98SE. NLE is Adobe Premiere 6.1. The computer (Pentium 1.6Ghz, plenty of hard drive space, 520Mb DDR) has been fine in all ways except for now. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
January 27th, 2004, 11:26 AM
|
#885 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 81
|
Bob,
You have reversed the field order by flipping it upside down. DV is lower field first, and now you're going upper field first. One way to solve the problem is to nudge the footage up or down one pixel to get the lower field in the right place. I'm not 100% sure how else to fix it in Premiere; I know in After Effects you can just tell it to interpret the footage upper field first and then render it out lower field. I'm sure there's good instructions in the "help" file of Premiere, though. Good luck, Ryan Graham |
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
