Wow James! That looks REALLY clean! nice build! I was wondering if you were planning on building any sort of rails system to support the weight of the 50mm lens way out there? Is it pretty heavy that far from the DVX front mount?

You're really tempting me to go out and buy the DVX this weekend (I can't as I'm in the middle of getting a mortgage loan) hehe. But damn am I tempted to start my static 35 project after seeing your results and your approach!

The screen grabs you posted look great to me!

What was the total cost of your setup (minus the lens)?

Thanks!
-Dana

Joe-
I'm actually using (2) X10 macros. That was suggested by Brett Erskine. My camera is a 1st generation DVX100 with 190 hours on it. I haven't checked to see where I'm at in relation to 36mm x 26mm. I plan to this weekend. I can say this to those familiar with the DVX, I was zoomed in to Z60 @MF06 (if that helps). I can zoom out to Z47 before I start seeing the barrel creeping in the corners. But at that point it appears that "shadowing" is still present on the sides. So to be sure I got a very clean image without any vignetting I zoomed to Z60.

Richard-
The filter rings method is very solid (and strong). I had to buy them for $5-$7 each. I got a few for free. I ended up using too different thicknesses of rings. A certain combination of both were necessary to get just the right length. A trial and error method ;) I decided to glue the lens on. I glued on the (silver) lens mount from the camera body to the lens as well. It made for a secure fit if I glued the lens to that before glueing it in the step-up ring. Of course it also had to be figured into the measurement of the focal length.


Dana-
The lens is very heavy (and strong). As you can see in the QT, I was holding it and pulling focus - it was pretty unmanageable. Something will eventually have to be done to accomodate it. I haven't counted up the receipts yet. I bought some things that I ended up not using too. Like (2) very nice 55mm Raynox Tube Extensions. They were slightly too long for the focal length of my lens.

I mentioned earlier that the lens was a 50mm - it's a 52mm. Not a lens of choice, just one I had.

Thanks guys!

James I see you have been paying attention in class. Thanks for the credit. Its always nice to get something back after putting in soooo much work on this thread and in my design. Besides the idea of using two Hoya +10 Macros (Watch out. My heads about to get big) I also proposed the idea of using condensers instead of fresnels, ACHROMATIC close up diaopters instead of single element diopters and thoughs 72mm to 55mm step down rings but dont worry I promise I won't sue ;-)

I do have to give you major credit on finding just the right combo of filter rings to achieve the proper distance between the 35mm lens and the GG. I didnt think this was going to be possible because if your off by even a millimeter all of your focus marks on your 35mm lens wont be accurate, or even worse, you lose your minimum focus or the ability to focus at infinity. I went with the idea of a adjustable extention tube to not only make sure it was right but allow me to use more than one manufactures lenses (the extreme difference between cine and photo lenses)

Please post your findings on what frame size your capturing. Also I might recommend that if the glue idea doesnt hold up with the longer lenses do what I did. Take a filter stacker and mount your lens mount to it. Drill a clean diameter hole in the filter stacker for the light to pass thru. Now you have the abilty to fit just about any lens you can think off on your adapter. Theres other things you can do too to add more features/abilities to a homemade adapter but the rest are just butter. Good job.

Hey check your fous marks to make sure you got it right. If your close you might be able to grind off one or two threads on one of your filter rings and you should be there.

Brett Erskine
Director of Photography
Premiere Visions
www.CinematographerReels.com

Thanks Brett!

That means a lot coming from the man who taught me (almost) everything I know ;)

I'm not sure how to measure exactly what the dimensions (in millimeters) are of the capture on the GG, but I did a test to show what the lens is seeing.

http://homepage.mac.com/dvx100/PhotoAlbum4.html

Brett,
Also, concerning the correctness of the distance from the GG to the lens and the markings on the lens, I'd say it's pretty damn close. I guess I just happened to find the magical number. You're absolutely right - if it's off by the tiniest bit, the lens will appear not to focus correctly. I found that by focusing on "infinity" I could estimate the length easier. If the image was sharp with the lens focused on infinity (say something across the street), all the numbers seemed to be accurate. But then again I haven't measured to be certain.

Brett -- Thank you for the tip. You are so right; I went back in and fine-tuned the distance to the ground glass, and it got sharper! The best part is that the threaded filter washers can be slowly threaded to achieve what I'm sure is a 1mm adjustment. Once the distance is achieved, tighten it up, and it works perfectly I also did this on the infinity setting.

I can't wait to put the anamorphic lens back on this fine tuned aldu35. I also built this with the condenser lens that you knew would work. It has a focal length of 1. The macro that I made before this was 'sub par'. I could not have made this without your optical skill ... the trial and error would have been endless!

I have a few questions:

1. A few times I have heard people say that the grain on the GG becomes pronounced around f4 and above. Is this f4 on the camcorder, or f4 on the SLR lens?

2. What is a "threaded filter washer"?

3. James, do you have a condenser that came in a 55mm filter ring, or did you rig that together somehow?

4. James, in the picture of your rig, the rings that are marked "spacers", are these just filters that you popped the glass out of, or what?

5. I have to imagine that all of you out there who ground your own glass have a bunch of Aluminum Oxide grit left over. Would anyone be willing to sell me what you have left for a percentage of what you paid? It just seems so wasteful to buy a bunch of this stuff, then only use just a little. I'd be happy to take it off your hands.

Thanks everybody.

I have Aluminum Oxide for sale
 

Justin; I bought WAY to much aluminum oxide. I have WAO 5 micron, some 25 and some 9.

If anyone else in Canada is looking for some aluminum oxide I can sell some to you as well; I got hit with unexpected duties which equaled my purchase price when I bought this stuff, as it was shipped via FedEx from the USD. Wouldn't want that to happen to others as well.

Justin Burris
 

----Is this f4 on the camcorder, or f4 on the SLR lens? -------

That'S F4 on the SLR.

Justin-

The condensor is a X1 macro 55mm. It seems to work. I still plan to eventually replace it with an actual PCX lens.

The other rings I'm referring to as "spacers" are $5 UV filters with the glass removed (I got a couple for free).

um...that's +1.

porro & roof prism??
 

Some one know if porro prism act lick roof prism to revert image???

how to use ??? to "erects and reverts an image" ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porro_prism


link for porro prism maby "big" for for us
http://www.aosa.es/Ing/Catalogo/opti...orro2Class.htm
http://www.aosa.es/Ing/Catalogo/opti...mas/notpor.htm


and this look like p+S kit ;) ;)
http://hardinoptical.com/tvporro.html

Thanks everyone for answers to my questions.

Grain shows up at f4 on the SLR lens? What gives? It would make sense to me if the grain showed up when the camcorder was stopped down, but does anyone know why the grain shows up when the front lens is stopped down? I guess I have a lot more to learn about optics.

James:
I looked at the "Problem" page on your website. Did you ever figure out what was smearing the edge like that?

Ari:
Sounds like shipping across US-CAN border is too expensive. I hope someone can buy some of that off you to help offset your costs.

Anyone within the US have some left-over White Aluminum Oxide that they would like to part with? I would happily pay for the amount still in the container, and pay shipping and stuff like that. Or, I could pick it up if you are in my area. I'm in Olympia Washington, and I go to Seattle every week.

Justin-

I think the problem is with my SLR and not with any other part of my adapter. I took it all apart (again) and tested the image at various stages dismantled and I only see it after the lens is attached. Not sure if that's actually the problem though. It could be a problem with the adapter that's only apparent when the lens is attached! I haven't had the time to check it with another lens. And of course incorporating another lens will throw off the length of the adapter :(

I've seen this type problem to varying degrees before in images taken with other people's adapter.

Has this problem been dealt with before in this thread?

-J

Nice job James, and welcome to the 35 club

Lenses with different focal lengths
 

Hello everyone! Reading these threads and brainstorming this concept has been some of the most fun I've had with coming up with guerilla filming tactics.

I'm a little confused about one thing though. With my 35mm still camera, the distance of any lens I put on it is always the same distance to the film plane; no adjustments of the lens to film place distance need to be made by me to use that lens. But if I'm collecting my knowledge correctly, you guys are saying that lenses of different focal lengths will need to be distanced differently from the ground glass to obtain a clear projection? If this is so, why don't I have to do that on my 35mm slr? and does that mean there's no way of being able to use one build for all of my nikon lenses?

You're correct - the focal flange distance (the distance from the back of your SLR lens to the film) is the same for a particular camera body... which is why you can use any SLR lens which fits that body. The same is true for these adapters. You can build one adapter which will accept any of your Nikon lenses (which are for the same body style).

The focal length is hard to get exactly right, so many people building adapters have made this distance adjustable for fine tuning - or for the more adventurous, to support multiple body style lenses (Nikon and Canon for example). But for a particular body style, once its set it shouldn't change.

There has been a lot of discussion about the focal length of the condensor used. It doesn't seem to matter a ton because with a PCX condensor (flat one side, curved on the other), the flat side is right against the ground glass. If you've ever taken a regular magnifying glass or lens and looked through it at a piece of paper, you find that the closer you get the paper, the lower the magnification. When you're right on the paper, there's basically *no* magnification, which is what we want.

Now, this being said, the purpose of the condensor is to try and 'collect light'. We believe that the degree to which this is accomplished is a factor of the curvature of the lens. A long-focal length (very little curvature) doesn't collect as much light, but has less spherical abberation... and the inverse is true for a short-focal length. The ideal is right in the middle - collect as much as possible without curving up the edges. The general concensus is to use a focal length equal to the diameter of the lens - 52mm diameter/52mm focal length or thereabouts. But, to be honest, I don't think there have been a ton of experiments *other* than the diameter=focal length combo.

The key is that the condensor isn't really 'focusing' the light to a point, but collecting 'stray light' that wouldn't be in the direct path to the macro lens.

My two cents...

Blurring on James's image edges
 

Hi everyone,

Glad I discovered this forum. I've been trying to design an adapter on and off for the last 18 months. Have recently switched to the DVX100 and, starting from scratch, will hopefully build something that doesn't have as much hotspot as my last attempt.

James, I think the edge blurring might be caused by the Hoyas. At such a close distance from the GG you are certainly using a significant portion (i.e. diameter) of the glass of both the Hoya diopters. Of course, lens quality decreases near the edges and having two of them back to back is sure to amplify any abberations the lens may have. Also, it sure would be nice if you didn't have to use 55mm lenses, but could use something larger.

I wish there was more selection in hi powered diopters, especially with a 72mm diameter. Century Optics makes two very low powered ones for the DVX100.

Still, your results are the best I've seen for the DVX100 so far. And Brett, your suggestions have been great.

Keep up the good work everyone. Hopefully I'll be able to contribute something useful.

Actually, James, I'm just wondering if the edge blurring would still occur if you were to take out the condensor from your adapter?

Thanks guys!

I've posted another test (along with captured still frames).
http://www.homepage.mac.com/dvx100/iMovieTheater6.html

Joel -
I first noticed the problem before I even incorporated the condensor. Though it seems logical that it is the (2) X10 Hoyas, from what I can tell they alone don't appear to be causing it. In fact I'll post an image to prove it ;) And I hope I'm wrong! I'm still looking at my SLR as the source of the problem. Don't know why it would exactly. And until I can disprove that assumption with another (good) lens, that's where I'm going to focus my attention...so-to-speak.

James, that looks beautiful. What a nice record of the moment.

Hmm, it could be your Konica lens, but hopefully you can narrow down your problem, as the Hoyas seem to be the only way to go right now. Thanks for the reply.

For what it's worth to people researching different diopters, my first attempts were with a Sony VX2000E and a Century Optics +7 diopter (58mm). The Century Optics (Schneider) lens despite being an expensive piece of glass, still managed to show noticeable pincushion distortion when used in conjunction with my VX2000, though it stayed sharp even toward the edges.

I initially dropped the project because of the hotspot. I hadn't considered using a condenser before reading this thread. That seems to change this.

Anyone have any luck finding an Achromat PCX lens? Maybe an Achromat is overkill for the condenser, but might be worth it if they are out there.

Just had a thought about testing the cause of the smearing. James, if you try to shoot a relatively uniform image source (like a bleached out sky or a bright wall) and stop down your Konica lens a bit until you can clearly see the grain pattern of your GG, then take a frame grab of that, you might be able to ascertain if the smearing is caused before the image hits the GG (i.e. by your SLR lens) or after the image hits the GG (i.e. by your diopter combo). If it is caused by your Konica lens, the grain pattern around the edges of the frame will still be consistent with the grain pattern in the rest of the frame. If the smearing is caused by your diopters, then the grain pattern around the edges of the frame will be disturbed (i.e. smoothed out).

Anyhow, great work!

DAMN! Bad news. The Hoyas do appear to be causing the aberrations.
http://www.homepage.mac.com/dvx100/PhotoAlbum5.html

Although the test was less than exactly accurate, it does clearly show the problem.

Thanks for the push Joel and the compliment :)

Sorry to hear that, James. But at least you now know what's causing the blurring.

You could always try taking off one of the diopters. This would force you to zoom in more, which would also mean you'd be shooting through less of the diopter's edge area (i.e. through more of its sweet spot). The only hurdle could be that the DVX100 might not be able to zoom in enough to shoot a 24X36mm target full frame with only one diopter. You can certainly test this, though. You mentioned you were zoomed to about 60 as it is. I wonder if you have enough zoom left in the ol' camera to fill the frame.

On the downside, it would lengthen your adapter by 5cm, but might improve your results.

Hmm, by my pen and paper calculation you will probably not be able to zoom in down to 36mm across. If you are 60% zoomed in at +20, I think that with a +10, the tightest you can frame in will be around 40mm.

Though, I'm curious what the real world numbers are.

Macro Solution
 

James,

I think the solution is simple. You need to get your hands on two 72mm +10 macros. Put those on first, then your 72-55 stepdown ring. That way the edges of the diopter would be covered by your stepdown and 55mm tube rig.

I just ordered two 72mm +10 macros off ebay for that specific reason. When they get here I'll let you know how it works.

John

One thing everybody might need to be mindful of is that when optical image erection into camcorder via prisms/mirrors is designed, things will change.

I haven't done it yet because I am too pre-occupied with more essential things right now.

Early experiments indicate that the current crop of close-up lenses, macros, etc., will shorten the camcorder to groundglass image path too much for a reflective erecting array to be inserted.

The longer path caused by the prisms/mirrors will require weaker lenses to be used. Co-incidentally, the deficits associated with strong lenses will be reduced though not avoided.

John -
I agree, the right 72mm Macros (could they be had) would likely resolve this issue. But you might want to go back and read up on the discussion about macros and why I went with the Hoya 55mm. You can start around here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...202#post144202

Then again, I haven't tested those eBay 10X 72mm macros. So they may work. Good luck and let us know!

In the light of a new day, I went back and tested various configurations (AGAIN!) of my adapter and found that with just a little more care taken on focusing I was able to reduce the smearing of the edges a little bit while staying close to the 36mm area of the GG.

The situation is (as Joel implied earlier), I'm so close to the macros that I'm unable to focus on the entire 24X36 image area. I can focus on the outer edge, but then the center area is slightly soft. For DVX100 users, the difference between the inner and outer focus point is around MF07 to MF04! So I decided to set the focus on MF05 @ Z57 which brought the outer portion of the image closer to focus while appearing to maintain focus in the center. It's not a fix but it's better. Along with letterboxing (which I almost always use for asthetic reasons), the image is somewhat more acceptable.
http://www.homepage.mac.com/dvx100/P...um5.html<br /> Note: This test (image) is not exact since I'm hand-holding the camera and also only approximating the distance between the macros and where the GG is ;)

Hi James, that looks a lot better. Thanks for posting the images. Those 72mm +10 diopters are the only ones I've seen anywhere, and there is no indication if they are achromats or not. It's worth a try though.

In the thread you posted a link to, Brett mentions that he heard Hoya came out with 58mm +10 diopters and was going to order a couple. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find mention of those anywhere on the net.

So, is it safe to assume that this won't work with just one +10 diopter and the DVX100 (while still framing for 24x36mm)? I might have missed a post where someone verified that.

James, would you be able to verify that?

Bob, in my early designs, I considered a front face mirror and prism combo, but opted against it because of the associated light loss from the addition of those materials and the fact that this necessitated more zooming, which at a certain point, also made me lose 1.5 stops of light. Doing an LCD screen "erection" seemed like a better solution with regard to preventing light loss.

John, I hope those diopters give you good results, and if so, that they are available to the rest of us.

Good luck everyone.

I also didn't see anything in those auctions about those lenses being achromats. I'm really interested in seeing what kind of an image those macros will produce, can't wait to hear how they work John!

I posted something on the dvxuser messageboard and haven't gotten any responces yet so I figure I'll throw it up here and see if anyone has any thoughts that may help me out:

There's a few questions I wanted to ask you guys about the achromat diopters. _I'm shooting on a 100A and most likely won't need two 10x pieces. _If I used two 10x anyway would that hurt me in any way? _The reason I would just get two 10x instead of experimenting is at least I know I can work multiple lens type usage in there somehow and I don't have the time or money to try all different power levels. _But if I did take the easy way out would I have to just zoom in more and possibly deny myself of the ability to attain a lower f-stop? I've already started principle photography on a sketch comedy show I'm shooting and the sooner I can be running accurate tests the better!
_
I understand in full the purpose of the condensor, but am not completely sure what I should be looking for to use as one. _This would be a piece along the lines of a fresnel right? _If Brett or anyone out there can bear with my newbie-style questions I'd be all too thankful _
_
Since I was first thinking about Building the Agus my brain is still bent on thinking about a spinning ground glass, or at least one in some form of movement. This static adapter is much less bulky and easier to start out with, especially for the DVX, but can't there be some way we can incorporate the moving ground glass into this "barrell" style design
_
This was rolling around me head lastnight, so please try to follow my fragmented logic
_
Let's say we had a threaded filter that has the ability of its glass element to spin in its housing for adjustments to be made in its orientation. _I'm not sure if these really exist, but for some reason I feel like I've seen them before. _That would mean if it was used as the ground glass, there would be a way for it to spin already. _The motor would obviously have to spin the ground glass filter from the outside, and that is something a little tricky to figure out. _Maybe using the basic principle of a follow focus mount to spin the glass? _I'm sure I'm simplifying it, but mount a geared ring around the ground glass filter and place another gear to work with that one at 90 degrees and thats the one you can hook the motor to. _So the motor will spin the gears and in turn spin the ground glass. _Can someone shoot me down cause I know I have to me missing something and I bet its impossible!
_
And if this was even able to be employed, would we experience the "grain vortex" that I've read about with the older P+S mini35 models? _ Just a thought that maybe can get some of these great minds on this messageboard brewing some new innovations! _
_
Maybe we could get real fancy and figure out a way to make the glass oscillate so that vortex isn't an issue _
_
Hope to hear all your comments and opinions soon!
_
Nick

I thought of this a while back playing with a polarizer filter in my hand...it would be something like an extended middle section with a ball bearing assembly so it could be spun. I wasn't even thinking of gears, but more of a direct drive type where the motor would have a rubber wheel attached and this would spin the glass. I guess you could have a belt drive too, which would also probably be easier than gears.

I never really pushed this idea since I heard people talking of a...oh now I forget...how...ME! It was an effect of spinning the GG in a circle --the grain would create some weird effect where the image would appear as a...a...AHHH! sorry. The grain wouldn't be moving over the image area in the same way -- the grain at end of the gg would be always spinning and moving quicker than the grain near the centre.

someone PLEASE help me out with what i am trying to say...ugh sorry!

Rob

Joel -
I can assure you the DVX100 won't work with just one 10X. Brett Erskine estimated that you'll need at the minimum +17 (again for the DVX100). I just went ahead and got (2) 10x Hoyas because I thought the extra power would help and that's what Brett was planning to use.

Oh, and if memory serves me I think if you read a little further from the mention of the 58mm macros, he recants. As far as I know the Hoya 10X only come in 55mm.

Nick, maybe you could try the Century Optics 72mm +3.5 diopter in conjunction with a Hoya 55mm +10. Though, bear in mind that the Century Optics lens costs $325 at B&H. I don't have the ability to test it myself, but +13.5 might be a good number.

Focussing at a very short distance (such as the distance dictated by a +20 diopter i.e. 5cm), as James has seen, causes some edge blurring if the diameters of the diopters you are relying on are significantly smaller than 72mm. In addition, focussing on anything with the DVX at 5cm ( in this case the GG), causes a fair amount of barrel distortion. The barrel distortion is unrelated to
the diopters you might have on the camera at the time. That's something inherent to the DVX100's own lenses when focussing so close.

Something like +13.5 diopter combination would put your focussing distance to 7.4cm (regardless of whether you have a DVX100 or DVX100A or even a Sony XYZ) and should improve the barrel distortion a bit, since the focussing distance is now a bit longer. But the main fact that one of the diopters has a 72mm diamter might give you less edge blurring.

Although, James's newest zoom/focus tests look to be pretty good on their own.

If you have the ability to test a Century Optics +3.5 72mm diopter and a Hoya without purchasing them, then you might want to do that and please tell us what you find).

Good luck on your show.

72mm +10
 

James

Yeah, I actually read that original post about the hoya +10s. The second webaddress does confirm that those hoyas are 2 element macros. But the first address where you purchased it doesn't... and as a matter of fact, it goes out of the way to separate them from the 2 element macros they're selling. And since I wasn't absolutely sure who was telling me what, and didn't want to spend $120 to experiment with two macros (especially since I knew they would at best give me the problem you're seeing), I went with the 72mms on ebay. They may not be good enough, I have no idea, but they're cheap enough for me to experiment with. Here's to hoping they work... for everyone's sake.

By the way, I just want to commend you on such a fantastic design. When I first saw it I had a mixed reaction of "YES!!", and "Man why didn't I think of that!" I can't stand the look of PVC or tape anywhere in the design. I know that's sounds base, but what can I say? I'm trying to come up with a really clean, fully metal, version of what you've made, but with an adjustable tube. I'm experimenting with filter rings of varing sizes that slide over the the top of the 55mm section snugly... I'm gonna use little plumbing O-rings to furthur seal off light, and a screw (similar to the one used with the DVX's plastic mattebox) to lock it in place. Any thoughts? Ideas? Wish me luck.

Thanks for the response, James. Based on my own estimates as well, I figured a +10 probably would not be sufficient, but would be pretty close. I just wanted to make sure. I don't want to start a big debate here about Brett's estimates, but I'm not as convinced that you will need a +17. Brett, I believe, also wanted to be able to focus down to a 16x22 target, which is not my intension. I think a +13.5 should be sufficient for framing 36mm across, but it should be tested, and in fact, I would have thought a +10 would have been just a few mm shy of being able to frame 36mm across. I'm using some visualizaton software to do the calculations, but they still aren't real world.

John-
Well according to B&H they are 2 element: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=94233&is=REG

Here's the actual link that convinced me to buy them in the 1st place (although the samples don't show them stacked): http://www.lensmateonline.com/A80macrocomp.html

Concerning the design, I really went for the simpliest way to make the adapter. I wasn't too concerned with versatility and compatibility with different types of lens as much as I just wanted to make one that worked with the lens I had ;)

Joel-
Allow me to clarify. I misquoted Brett. This is actually what he said: "... +16 diopter(s) or stronger is whats needed if you plan on using cine lenses. Still lenses work with +13 maybe +12". Sorry about the misquote - just trying to pass along information :)

Oh hey, James, don't worry about the misquote. Thanks very much for clearing it up. That does seem to line up with my own calculations.

I wonder if you've noticed any barrel distortion with the +20? I suppose as you start to shoot a larger variety of subjects, such as poles or wall edges, etc, that might start becoming apparent. However, probably the best test would be to shoot some grid paper with your macros, much as you have shot the newspapers.

Great effort everyone!

Here are the numbers I've come up with for the DVX100:

36X24mm = Just over +10 power diopter (+13.5 will be enough)

24X16mm = aprox +17 power diopter or stronger



Here are the numbers I've come up with for the DVX100A:

36x24mm = I've HEARD you dont need any diopter at all due to it better minimum focus specs

24X16mm = If the above statement is true then logic tells us a +7 or stronger diopter should work


I've based my numbers on real world test with the diopters.

If you plan to use a anamorphic field lens for your GG then then your target numbers are going to be even smaller which means a stronger diopter.

Unless Hoya JUST came out with a new version of 72mm diopter in the last few months your ebay diopter is going to be a single element.

55mm is a big as anyone they make them when it comes achromats.

58mm dont exist. It was a misprint on a web site.

EVEN the 55mm Hoyas are two element achromats, they have the slightest amount of chroma abberation. Its much less than anything else out there of the same power and it becomes slightly more noticeable when you stack two. Using larger ones would be better but they dont seem to exist.

When focusing extremely close to a flat object like the GG when using two diopters you'll notice that the center is in focus while the outside of the image is not. This is due to the minor distance between the two points and the lens. Increasing the distance between the GG and the first diopter is the simplest way to fix this problem.

Glad you guys are still keeping this project alive. It just goes to show you that their are plenty videographers out there that truely understand and appreciate the subtle characteristics of a film image. Unfortunately I've been too busy lately to do much work on it but last time I screwed around with it I was working on incorporating a synced 180 degree rotating shutter with the GG. This achieves smoother, more natural film motion blur that even some of the most expensive HD 24p cameras lack and defeats the problem with apparent grain in the GG at the same. Anamorphic GG, tilt shift movements the possibilities seem endless. The goal: a adapter that allows small, light weight, inexpensive cameras such as the DVX100 to step up and produce the images that dont compromise our creativity and do it at a price where ownership makes sense in this progessively fast moving digital market.

-Brett Erskine
www.CinematographerReels.com

<<<-- Originally posted by Brett Erskine : The goal: a adapter that allows small, light weight, inexpensive cameras such as the DVX100 to step up and produce the images that dont compromise our creativity and do it at a price where ownership makes sense in this progessively fast moving digital market. -->>>

Here, here, Brett. Thanks for all the info. But, wouldn't an anamorphic pcx increase your target area? You aren't planning to squeeze the image in width, but actually stretch it in height. Unless, you're doing it the other way around for some reason.

Joel

Hmmm..... how could a second shutter on the GG (in addition to the existing shutter on the camera) help? The motion blur is going to be determined by only one thing - the time the shutter is open for the CCD on your camera. I must be missing something... I saw the word 'synced' but doesn't that just eliminate the need for the second shutter (making it exactly the same as the first shutter)? Help me to understand this...