Consolidated XL1 35mm Adapter Thread

Aaron Shaw · January 16th, 2005, 10:37 AM

Steev, that video clip is freaking awesome! :-D

Dan Diaconu · January 16th, 2005, 07:30 PM

After a brief email exchange with Steev, I suggested (as a test) to use a CMOS/CCD lens as a "relay lens". They are small and inexpensive (every webcam/survailance has them)
and hold it in the XL's mount (by tape for now and obviously without the 16X mounted) (as an alternative to SLR 20mm for the same purpose) I did not test them yet, but I guess a 6 , 8 or 12mm will do.
Note: most web come with 3.6 or 4.2mm lens (so wider than ideal for this application. Might distort the image and/or not give you the full brightness to cornes from Fresnel/GG if you move too clos e to GG as to fill the screen.

When you can get a clean image of a B Card with a recangle 24/36mm (or whatever size you can use from medium Beattie about 32/45mm?) than all you need is the XL male mount (as from the 16X lens) to mount them on the camcorder and hold them together.

The "whole adapter" would be : Prime lens (Nikon? or else) 46.5mm to GG, XL mount and (inside) lens for the CCD.

This is (IMHO) the most efficient way to get the "look" without going too "hard" on the XL's mount (to support the extra weight) and without a "need" for rods. (unless you need FF or remote focus)
I would be happy to hear a sucessful test came out of this.

Kevin Burnfield · January 16th, 2005, 08:07 PM

I'll second that "freaking awesome!" comment about the vid... Steev, great stuff.

For some time I've thought that doing an a spinning GG option would be easier to do then a static one--- I'm still not 100% sure that it is not the case but Steev, you've been doing some fantastic work for everyone!!!!

Steev Dinkins · January 16th, 2005, 08:16 PM

Well, I keep getting rejuvenated spirit. Glutton for experimentation.

Bob, I thought of going up in GG diameter but with Beattie screens, that is wayyyy expensive experimentation. I feel that going for a different relay lens is the way to go. I can only dream of getting the prism version going (which means forgetaboutit - I'll end up buying the P+S by then after finishing projects with my home brew).

I ripped apart 3 video cameras yesterday:

http://www.holyzoo.com/111/video/Zoo..._01-15-05c.mov I think this sums up how much work all this is.

I extracted their lenses, and only one resulted in an image that I could get by holding it up to the XL2 CCD and holding the GG up to the front of the lens. To be blunt, it looked like shit. I think the CCD of the camera from which I snagged it from was 1/4".

So I'm in the process of fetching/looking for higher quality c-mount lenses on ebay.

By looking at BHphoto, I'm learning that these lenses come in 1/4" all the way to 1" My first guess is to go for 1" 25mm or so. If I go with smaller lenses, my question is does the requirement for focal length move towards wider or more telephoto? For example would a 1/3" need to be more like a 8mm? This is where I'm lost, in the dark.

If I find a c-mount that works with test positioning, I'd get an adapter built to mount on to the XL mount.

My other concern is that these C-mount lenses will require a smaller diameter GG (focus screen) when I've already invested in a 2" width format.

Who knows......

Filip Kovcin · January 17th, 2005, 08:10 PM

Steev,

can you tell me what codec this clip uses - i can smoothly open and play your other clips but not this one.

http://www.holyzoo.com/111/xl2/video...Wide_Test6.mov

thanks,

filip

p.s.

your film in park with kids is just amazing!

Steev Dinkins · January 17th, 2005, 09:10 PM

Filip, that clip is in DV50 codec. It may not play very well in a browser window, but should play fine in quicktime player or final cut pro in a sequence set to DV50 codec. I'm using DV50 after 4:1:1 Color Smoothing in Final Cut Pro to get rid of DV25's awful handling of reds, etc.

Thanks for the kudos! The kids in the park was a standard Canon XL lens, which reminds me - non 35mm imaging is great too!!

Kevin Burnfield · January 18th, 2005, 06:18 AM

Steev... you are a madman. LOL!!

Great vid and I'm happy the bunny made a cameo---

Aaron Shaw · January 18th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Steve, have you tested this footage on a 16:9 tv? HD for instance? I'm interested in how obvious the grain is when blown up to TV size.

Steev Dinkins · January 18th, 2005, 02:42 PM

Aaron, I don't have an HD TV or large TV. If you have such a TV, I can post a DVD image that you can burn and play on a DVD Player on your TV.

I guess I haven't been driven to test it like that since I've been critiquing the footage on an Apple 23" Cinema Display (no slouch).

*Steev Ramble Time*

I was watching music videos on FUSE on digital cable last night and thinking about how much fast cutting and movement is going on and with intentional grain/noise introduced, and was left thinking that for that kind of work, this level of optical quality is cool cool cool. For a short film with much slower pacing and lots of money thrown at the production, lights, props, talent, and crew - I'm not sure how I'd feel about relying on this homebrew method. The subject would have to be experimental where imperfections are more than okay since it would be more about "hey we have this grand idea and know how to communicate it, so here it is". I'd guess audiences will concentrate on the story, the acting, the editing, the energy, not whether they saw slight grain blowout on brighter out of focus parts of the image, or if that spec of dust over here and there. And like any gear, it would be crucial to know what's going to look good given the medium, and what will look bad. Am I rationalizing? Yup!! :) I'll be working on some short pieces soon and perhaps I'll post them, including burnable DVD image, so it can be critiqued.

Hoping that a low cost moving glass invention surfaces some day,

steev
www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php

Aaron Shaw · January 18th, 2005, 02:48 PM

Thanks for the info Steev :)

BTW, does anyone know why highlights tend to blow out when using these adapters? It really bothers me at times!

Kevin Burnfield · January 19th, 2005, 08:18 PM

I just noticed that there was an XL2 thread started.... it looks like our effort to focus all the XL development (since the XL1 and 2 both use the same lenses and adapter) is getting spread out again.

Steev Dinkins · January 19th, 2005, 09:17 PM

Kevin, as background, I didn't start the XL2 thread, but have posted a bunch in it, and some posts in this one.

However, starting reading from scratch on this thread has been painful for me. Don't get me wrong - this thread has been crucial research, but my question remains - who has had success on this mission? And where are some summarizing applications and documentation?

Could there be a new thread with detailed successes posted at the top to begin with?

Kevin Burnfield · January 19th, 2005, 09:40 PM

don't get me wrong... it was my suggestion that prompted the consolidated XL1 thread--- the idea of reading all the way makes my brain bleed too.

I'd love to start a new thread for new ideas but it never seems to work out that way.

You are the man of the hour Steev, you are currently our best hope for a successful design at the moment so whatever you say goes but I just hate to see people running around in different threads duplicated work being done elsewhere when we could all be working together.

I'm still amazed that with all the XL model cameras out there that we haven't been able to get a solid design and further along with an Aldus or an Agus 35 option... but unfortunately my brain isn't good for this sort of thing. I've got ideas but just not the hard core tech skills to build with.

I'd just love to have us get something going and I've been hoping that the XL2 coming out would envigorate the efforts.

Steev Dinkins · January 19th, 2005, 09:52 PM

Amen.

Brain Bleed - Yes. :)

I see your point - I'll shift my posts to this thread in the future instead of the other one.

Again, this sums up what I've gotten to work to some degree:

www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php

Joshua Provost · January 20th, 2005, 11:50 AM

For one, I am surprised there are so many threads. I think we should take a more modular approach. The adaptor segment from 35mm lens through GG should really be interchangable, all that should differ is the registration length to focus different lenses on the GG. Assuming this is done correctly, it should always result in an identical imaging area on the GG.

The segment from GG to camera is what differs from camera to camera, based on the camera. The variables are the minimum focus distance for each camera, and what length spacing and macro lenses may be necessary to focus on the imaging area, and any step-up/step-down required.

January 16th, 2005, 10:37 AM	#256
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Steev, that video clip is freaking awesome! :-D

January 16th, 2005, 07:30 PM	#257
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	After a brief email exchange with Steev, I suggested (as a test) to use a CMOS/CCD lens as a "relay lens". They are small and inexpensive (every webcam/survailance has them) and hold it in the XL's mount (by tape for now and obviously without the 16X mounted) (as an alternative to SLR 20mm for the same purpose) I did not test them yet, but I guess a 6 , 8 or 12mm will do. Note: most web come with 3.6 or 4.2mm lens (so wider than ideal for this application. Might distort the image and/or not give you the full brightness to cornes from Fresnel/GG if you move too clos e to GG as to fill the screen. When you can get a clean image of a B Card with a recangle 24/36mm (or whatever size you can use from medium Beattie about 32/45mm?) than all you need is the XL male mount (as from the 16X lens) to mount them on the camcorder and hold them together. The "whole adapter" would be : Prime lens (Nikon? or else) 46.5mm to GG, XL mount and (inside) lens for the CCD. This is (IMHO) the most efficient way to get the "look" without going too "hard" on the XL's mount (to support the extra weight) and without a "need" for rods. (unless you need FF or remote focus) I would be happy to hear a sucessful test came out of this.

January 16th, 2005, 08:07 PM	#258
Kevin Burnfield Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 363	I'll second that "freaking awesome!" comment about the vid... Steev, great stuff. For some time I've thought that doing an a spinning GG option would be easier to do then a static one--- I'm still not 100% sure that it is not the case but Steev, you've been doing some fantastic work for everyone!!!!

January 16th, 2005, 08:16 PM	#259
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Well, I keep getting rejuvenated spirit. Glutton for experimentation. Bob, I thought of going up in GG diameter but with Beattie screens, that is wayyyy expensive experimentation. I feel that going for a different relay lens is the way to go. I can only dream of getting the prism version going (which means forgetaboutit - I'll end up buying the P+S by then after finishing projects with my home brew). I ripped apart 3 video cameras yesterday: http://www.holyzoo.com/111/video/Zoo..._01-15-05c.mov I think this sums up how much work all this is. I extracted their lenses, and only one resulted in an image that I could get by holding it up to the XL2 CCD and holding the GG up to the front of the lens. To be blunt, it looked like shit. I think the CCD of the camera from which I snagged it from was 1/4". So I'm in the process of fetching/looking for higher quality c-mount lenses on ebay. By looking at BHphoto, I'm learning that these lenses come in 1/4" all the way to 1" My first guess is to go for 1" 25mm or so. If I go with smaller lenses, my question is does the requirement for focal length move towards wider or more telephoto? For example would a 1/3" need to be more like a 8mm? This is where I'm lost, in the dark. If I find a c-mount that works with test positioning, I'd get an adapter built to mount on to the XL mount. My other concern is that these C-mount lenses will require a smaller diameter GG (focus screen) when I've already invested in a 2" width format. Who knows......

January 17th, 2005, 08:10 PM	#260
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	Steev, can you tell me what codec this clip uses - i can smoothly open and play your other clips but not this one. http://www.holyzoo.com/111/xl2/video...Wide_Test6.mov thanks, filip p.s. your film in park with kids is just amazing!

January 17th, 2005, 09:10 PM	#261
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Filip, that clip is in DV50 codec. It may not play very well in a browser window, but should play fine in quicktime player or final cut pro in a sequence set to DV50 codec. I'm using DV50 after 4:1:1 Color Smoothing in Final Cut Pro to get rid of DV25's awful handling of reds, etc. Thanks for the kudos! The kids in the park was a standard Canon XL lens, which reminds me - non 35mm imaging is great too!!

January 18th, 2005, 06:18 AM	#262
Kevin Burnfield Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 363	Steev... you are a madman. LOL!! Great vid and I'm happy the bunny made a cameo---

January 18th, 2005, 02:10 PM	#263
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Steve, have you tested this footage on a 16:9 tv? HD for instance? I'm interested in how obvious the grain is when blown up to TV size.

January 18th, 2005, 02:42 PM	#264
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Aaron, I don't have an HD TV or large TV. If you have such a TV, I can post a DVD image that you can burn and play on a DVD Player on your TV. I guess I haven't been driven to test it like that since I've been critiquing the footage on an Apple 23" Cinema Display (no slouch). Steev Ramble Time I was watching music videos on FUSE on digital cable last night and thinking about how much fast cutting and movement is going on and with intentional grain/noise introduced, and was left thinking that for that kind of work, this level of optical quality is cool cool cool. For a short film with much slower pacing and lots of money thrown at the production, lights, props, talent, and crew - I'm not sure how I'd feel about relying on this homebrew method. The subject would have to be experimental where imperfections are more than okay since it would be more about "hey we have this grand idea and know how to communicate it, so here it is". I'd guess audiences will concentrate on the story, the acting, the editing, the energy, not whether they saw slight grain blowout on brighter out of focus parts of the image, or if that spec of dust over here and there. And like any gear, it would be crucial to know what's going to look good given the medium, and what will look bad. Am I rationalizing? Yup!! :) I'll be working on some short pieces soon and perhaps I'll post them, including burnable DVD image, so it can be critiqued. Hoping that a low cost moving glass invention surfaces some day, steev www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php

January 18th, 2005, 02:48 PM	#265
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Thanks for the info Steev :) BTW, does anyone know why highlights tend to blow out when using these adapters? It really bothers me at times!

January 19th, 2005, 08:18 PM	#266
Kevin Burnfield Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 363	I just noticed that there was an XL2 thread started.... it looks like our effort to focus all the XL development (since the XL1 and 2 both use the same lenses and adapter) is getting spread out again.

January 19th, 2005, 09:17 PM	#267
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Kevin, as background, I didn't start the XL2 thread, but have posted a bunch in it, and some posts in this one. However, starting reading from scratch on this thread has been painful for me. Don't get me wrong - this thread has been crucial research, but my question remains - who has had success on this mission? And where are some summarizing applications and documentation? Could there be a new thread with detailed successes posted at the top to begin with?

January 19th, 2005, 09:40 PM	#268
Kevin Burnfield Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 363	don't get me wrong... it was my suggestion that prompted the consolidated XL1 thread--- the idea of reading all the way makes my brain bleed too. I'd love to start a new thread for new ideas but it never seems to work out that way. You are the man of the hour Steev, you are currently our best hope for a successful design at the moment so whatever you say goes but I just hate to see people running around in different threads duplicated work being done elsewhere when we could all be working together. I'm still amazed that with all the XL model cameras out there that we haven't been able to get a solid design and further along with an Aldus or an Agus 35 option... but unfortunately my brain isn't good for this sort of thing. I've got ideas but just not the hard core tech skills to build with. I'd just love to have us get something going and I've been hoping that the XL2 coming out would envigorate the efforts.

January 19th, 2005, 09:52 PM	#269
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Amen. Brain Bleed - Yes. :) I see your point - I'll shift my posts to this thread in the future instead of the other one. Again, this sums up what I've gotten to work to some degree: www.holyzoo.com/zoo_updates.php

January 20th, 2005, 11:50 AM	#270
Joshua Provost Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 493	For one, I am surprised there are so many threads. I think we should take a more modular approach. The adaptor segment from 35mm lens through GG should really be interchangable, all that should differ is the registration length to focus different lenses on the GG. Assuming this is done correctly, it should always result in an identical imaging area on the GG. The segment from GG to camera is what differs from camera to camera, based on the camera. The variables are the minimum focus distance for each camera, and what length spacing and macro lenses may be necessary to focus on the imaging area, and any step-up/step-down required.