Consolidated XL1 35mm Adapter Thread

[Stephen Birdsong]

http://sbirdsong.greatnow.com/35mm%20test/35mm%20test%20web.html
again, make sure you have use pop up blocking (safari, firefox) cause this webhoster is crap.

Ok, so as you can see through the pics, this is done pretty shoddily, but it proves the concept.

I did a comparison between what I was capturing through my setup (50mm) and what 50mm (1/3 inch equivalent) through the 16x would be.
http://sbirdsong.greatnow.com/35mm%20test/movies/35mm%20test%202%20low%20res.mp4

That gives us 2 things:
it gives a comparison of dof, and it also shows that I am not actually getting the proper size frame off the gg, Im getting a much smaller frame, which tells me I need a wider relay lens than a 50mm (duh, I coulda told you that).

Wish I woulda thought to get a comparison of the actual framing, then I would know a % of what I am getting, then I could use that percentage and get a wider lens based on that percentage.

The front element (everything besides my relay lens) is very far from the camera. This is bad. It is because I'm using a 50mm lens, thats just the closest I can get it in focus.

Drop me any questions, I'll be watching the thread.

stephen

[Stephen Birdsong]

There is absolutely no need for any chips, or any adjustability either.

[Jeff Donald]

Your going to have a big "No Lens Attached" icon constantly blinking in the viewfinder. This was a big complaint about the Fujinon/Optix lens by some users.

[Stephen Birdsong]

I had the 14x manual, which to the best of my understanding had no chips, and the "no lens" never blinked. I *think* that as long as something is in the xl mount, it can sense that.

[Kevin Burnfield]

thanks Stephen.

Man, that GG you are using is like a quadruple fog filter but you can see the DOF and know you are on the right track.

[Kevin Burnfield]

Actually, the "check the lens" warning only comes up when you first power on the camera and quickly goes away.

At least that is the way it works with the real Mini-35.

[Stephen Birdsong]

yeah, now that you mention it, thats true. I was messin with my cam today, and realized that it did go away.

[Stephen Birdsong]

im ordering:
http://www.optosigma.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=OS&Product_Code=pg211&Category_Code=Filters+%26+Apertures
a 50mm gg from this website, so this should greatly improve on the image quality (maybe now I can actually get an image to seem in focus).

and I'm going to try to find a used camera store where I can purchase a cheap 20mm lens.

stephen

[Kevin Burnfield]

Stephen, if you put a '[' and then 'URL]' and then the link followed by a '[' with '/URL]' with your link in the middle (had to write it like that so it doesn't think I'm trying to do HTML and pick it up as a link) it will be clickable.

[Bob Hart]

Steven.

Perhaps try drawing several concentric (each inside the other) rectangles on clear plastic (stiff sock or business shirt wrapper).

You might have to scribe the lines first with a pin or compass point before the ink will take.
Make sure the rectangles are on the same centre, maybe join the corners through the center with diagonal lines.

Place the compass point in that centre then draw a circle the size of your groundglass internal diameter, cut out the circle and stick this piece of clear plastic up against your groundlgass.

Two of those retangles should be the still-camera image frame the size which I don't know and the 24mm x 18mm motion picture 4:3 image frame.

Hope this helps.

[Stephen Birdsong]

Bob, good idea, ill give that a try in my next round.
Along with it, I will also do a comparison of the actual framing, with the regular 16x lens. It will be interesting to see the dof/compression difference while achieving the same framing.

It will probably have to wait untill next weekend, as I get home from work and the sun is down. If anyone has any suggestions, I will try more things.

Trying to order the real gg, maybe it will come before sat. wishful thinking.

stephen birdsong

[Wayne Morellini]

This is a promising idea, but I would petition the cheapest manufacturers that will give us the same quality system.

As the differences in various camera formats and mounts relate to size of image plane and flange distance from image plane, and on the video side, relay lens for cameras, then it is possible to make a universal adaptor for not much more cost (and as it has universal sales volume can decrease costs). It would go:

Lens, to quickly connect/disconnect any lens, each one would have a:
------
Lens Mount/Flange distance Adaptor (LMFDA) (this modifies to the correct flange distance for each different lens).
------
A static MF sized film plane/condenser with universal LMFDA connector to take 16mm, 35mm, SLR and MF lens.

Ideally for guerrilla doco low light situations, you could mechanically flip this out of the way and flip in a large optic to squeeze the image down to camera format with lots of light.
-------
Camera mount for each camera, containing Macro/relay lens to suit camera used (for when you want upgrade camera).
--------
To reduce cost and complexity: Different Lens electronics/mechanics handled in the film plane component, which provides universal mechanical controls/pass through signals, that the LMFDA reroute to that lens format (the LMFDA is actually dumb but passively handles the mechanical and electronic rerouting to the lens).

All you do then is buy the right LMFDA for your lens (if you only use one type of lens, like EOS, then you only need one), the film plane, and the right matching camera adaptor. As it is MF film plane components are big enough for a high quality 35mm picture to sit inside without optical distortions. You just need to ask for good triplet lens (to totally correct chroma etc) and the best film plane (custom microlense, Beattie?? screen, etc) for HD+ resolutions.

Actually it would be good if it also included standard quality, 2*ND's, CPOL, IR/UV, and Skylight (maybe colour correction as well) filters (the bottom of the barrel containing a belly where they can be pivoted up in from).

This would give them the whole market to sell to.

How much, $1000-$300, and that should be much better quality then the custom jobs and at least as good as the mini-35.

If they want to stratify the market (as they ussually do), and make more money off the more expensive cameras and more expensive lenses, then they charge more for the adaptors for them, and less for those with cheaper cameras. Still that should mean that complete setups (with at least 3 cheap SLR lense adaptors) still range from $300 to $1000.

[Jeff Donald]

I'll leave you boys to your fantasy with one last thought. Sigma is unlikely to want to make a lens as you describe. They don't have any experience making video lenses for this type of camera. However, Tamron does make video lenses. But Tamron is probably not in a position to start a new market in their financial position. In fact most camera and lens manufactures are struggling financially right now (not Canon). Why would they spend R&D dollars on an entirely new market when they need those dollars to stay competitive in their core business?

[Wayne Morellini]

Ahhm, I can answer that one, to make money. In business, when your up against the wall, having cast off all the excess baggage, cut wastage to the bone, not innovating is a good way to go down with the sinking ship. If there is too much competition and the ability to easily innovate conventional lines is stretched to it's limits, new sorts of "needed" products is a good way out. The old saying, that you have to spend money to make money. The question is, how "needed" is the product, if it is a small market then $5K+ will be the price, if it is a big market (like a universal adaptor, the only different items are very simple relay lens adaptor for each camera) then under $1K is possible. My suggestions are for mass market production cost advantages and for appeal to customers.

To say that a camera lens company can't make these lens systems, is to insult them and to accuse them of being dumb, as they are all optical lenses systems with modest differences in hookup that even home builders have worked out (Let alone compitent engineers). So give them a break, let them try, you never know what they can achieve unless they try.

..

[Mike Tesh]

First things first we all need to get on the same page with what we want.

If we are going to petition a company to build an adapter we need to specify what exactly it is. And it needs to be as simple to manufacture as possible. That will ensure a better possibility it will get made

Wayne although your idea of a two part adapter would be the grand resolution to all things, I'm not sure a company would want to support that many lens mounts. Especially when it comes to medium format lenses as well. I would think that would raise the cost a little more since it would require a larger piece of ground glass.

We may have to make some sacrifices. As I said in an earlier post if we petition sigma we know they have their own SA lens mount and lenses they build for it. If we approach them saying we want an SA to XL mount adapter with ground glass element to retain 35mm DOF then they would possibly be more inclined to build it. Knowing they would tie us in to their SA mount and hence when we bought a digital SLR it would possibly be a Sigma model because we already have the lenses. That would be a good business move for them.

Our sacrifice would be the purchase of Sigma SA mount lenses. I know this isn't the most optimal solution for those of us who already have a bunch of lenses for a different mount (I'm a Nikon user myself) but it would be a good route for them and solve our primary problem in turn. Which is DOF control for the XL1.

Does this make sense to the rest of you? I'm trying to think about it from the perspective of both the end user and company in question.