New moving ground glass mechanism

Filip Kovcin · February 10th, 2005, 03:19 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Brett Erskine : Fillip-
I don’t want to make this a competition between designs because Dan is selling his and I'm not going down that road. -->>>

Brett,
my intention was NOT the competition. just curiosity. like - what if... nothing more.

sometimes is interesting to see things compared side by side.
i understand that there is too many differences etc, but that was just a thought.

filip

Dan Diaconu · February 11th, 2005, 11:33 AM

Bottom line is this: can you sell the footage and have it broadcast or in a festival? If yes, it accomplishes the purpose for a lot less. If no, it is still a very good practicing tool. Can you practice with a static just as well? Yes. Can you sell the footage? No, but you can generate interest and if the return is there.. invest and see a return on investment. But then again, if you show "this footage" and you have to explain "that footage", some people might have a hard time imagining what's going to look like. Been there many times.
Unless you show the real thing, the description (of such abstract thing as the "look of footage) does not help much(IMHO) That does not mean you can not try.
Finally, my Nikons of ebay are here (after 29 days from shipment) Should generate some footage.

I had a filter on the rear mount for "underwater test"
It does protect the GG from dust aso. However, being too close to it, might get some dust on the outside as Brett pointed out. Would you prefer no glass at all (front and rear) or glass but further away form the GG on the rear and filter on the front? If is there (front) protects but you can not blow the GG if some dust gets on the Fresnel. I have a filter now (front) and no dust on Fresnel, but what if?
............................
On the rear side I had it on and off many times and blew air a few times (safety)
So: Open or closed? (front) This is because once I have the mount in place I can not put the filter. It is either there or no.

(ideally would be both filters at far distanaces from the GG and clean at assembly I guess)but what if some dust was still left in there... just thinking ....

Brett Erskine · February 11th, 2005, 02:52 PM

I hear ya Dan. Since no one is putting these adapters together in a "clean room" all you can do is clean it as best as possible. Anything that might remain will most likely be too small to worry about once the GG is put in motion. I would recomend you do what I have had to do - add clear filters on both sides of the adapter to seal all addition dust from getting inside. Put them both as far from the GG as possible to put any dust on them completely out of focus and unseen but remember that the front clear filter must be put in a place not to interfer with the PL mount lenses. As you know they are different from still lenses and will recess far inside - beyond thier mount. You dont want the back of the lens to hit the clear filter. Its a tricky thing to do. Good luck.

P.S. When your done the whole thing might be a little quieter - but yours is already quiet so it may not matter.

Dan Diaconu · February 11th, 2005, 03:56 PM

Thanks Brett,
I have no intention (for now) to go PL mount. Reasons offered a few post back (in short benefits/cost/availability)
They are avail, but you either have to buy them (9K and up) or rent them @$250/day. Form the hi rez still I took, I see no reason to "over do it" (for now) I'll see if a rez chart will make me change my mind. If I see a SIGNIFICANT diff, it will be an open option. FB from you guys (once I have the pics) will help me decide.
Dust...dust .... dust..... to which we all return......dust... dust ....dust.....that's all that's left....(sic transit gloria mundi)

Frank Vrionis · February 13th, 2005, 09:36 PM

Hi Dan.

this is my first post...also my favourite thread.

excuse me if this has been asked before, but when will your unit be available and how much?

thanks Frank

Dan Diaconu · February 13th, 2005, 10:32 PM

Welcome and "join the club";-)<
After successful testing it on most popular camcorders (PD170, DVX100 and FX1)I am going through a major redesign of the whole unit in terms of mounting support, etc. In the end, the same converter can trade cameras in a minute with no additional parts required. Since most of it can be made using conventional follow or remote focus (of which there are quite a few around, that means rods, and that means sizes and matte boxes and so on. A total nightmare (to which I bring my humble contribution) When?... a good question. How much? better than the first one. When I'll know, you will know! I promise.

Frank Vrionis · February 14th, 2005, 02:45 AM

great!

Dan Diaconu · February 14th, 2005, 08:10 PM

work in progress here on the new shape guys......
Planning a demo shooting on FX1 and PD170A over next weekend and of course the Rez Charts.
but, meanwhile let's have some fun.
Here is a clip I did (and was broadcasted twice) a while ago.
Some guy smoking a piano.
A bit of info:
One angle (first and last images) was all I had from that concert (in Dec 2003) Frustrated, I went back to the theatre (Michel J Fox) and got it for about three hours some two weeks latter.
Here is what followed:
13 takes all together (5 simultaneous with 5 cameras)
(none played at the same speed for he was no machine!...?) A mixture of 1CCD, 3CCD and CMOS.
This is what turned out:
http://rapidshare.de/files-en/605790/best_performance_for_web.wmv.html
a week latter.
Just call me a "Premiere boy" for that's all I know, but: some of the shots in this clip were never seen B4 (that's how bad they are!!!)
5'long, 26Mb, 4 min download @ 150mbs, comments welcome.

Dan Diaconu · February 22nd, 2005, 12:36 PM

Here are two new pics of the latest design:

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/FIRST-PICTURES/IMGA0320

Nikon mount only (for now) with rods support and (optional but necessary) CU lens.
It works well with any camcorder including Sony Z1. However, every camcorder has a different distance from the base plate to the optical axes. Adjustments need to be made.
I do not think I will launch in a high volume manufacturing process. Units will be made by request.
If anyone is interested to order the image converter, email me off list for details and indicate the camcorder you intend to use.

Dogus Aslan · February 22nd, 2005, 02:35 PM

Dan i have talked to a friend who is an expert in micro mechanics, he told me that a mobile phone vibrator uses only a few miliampers from the battery, where the average mobile phone battery gives an output somewhere between 600-800 miliampers, in time the batery loses its property and cannot give the same energy, the loss may drop alot but still there will always be energy for the vibrator. according to him the screen backlight, headphone and receiving data use the most of the battery.

According to him..(who is "da man" in electric motors)..the telephone vibrator has a very short lifespan, while vibrating the burches (pieces holding the rotating rods) get corroded and the hole gets bigger making the vibrator to lose property.

He suggested using a more quality motor, not mobile phone motors.

Dan Diaconu · February 22nd, 2005, 03:34 PM

I can not agree more with your friend (although from what I found, MOST vibratos need AT LEAST 20mA @ NO LOAD!!!!!!)
The motor I choose needs only 4!!!!!!!mA @ less than 2V !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!under load----- while moving the GG that is!
But, did I EVER said I am using a cell vibrator? Check my posts from the first to this one before turning an "assumption" in to a fact and attribute it to me.
As for life of the device as is today, TIME will tell better than WORDS. I do not think I will be around for another 50 years, nor the technology will obsolete the contraption in a few years from now, but who knows, somewhere in a museum, a unit WILL work many years from now.
Oh, ... BTW
For all interested in stealing ideas (not you):
I took some painful time to design the device in such a way that if is ever attempted to be taken apart, one will not only loose his money, but it will never have it back in one piece or learn the working mechanism. Critical adjustments are made at assembly and are unique to each unit. It is made for shooting movies and should be used as such. Now you know.

Leo Mandy · February 22nd, 2005, 04:42 PM

Interesting Dan,

What are the handles for? And the rods that run vertically but don't seem to hold anything?

It definitely looks cool!

Dan Diaconu · February 22nd, 2005, 05:16 PM

The handles are for hand held.
The vertical rods when mounted on a plate (not photographed) will allow the whole thing to me mounted up side down so the image need not be flipped in post (just an option for lazy people like me)

Sarena Valilis · February 23rd, 2005, 01:27 AM

ok,

if i understand your most recent post you are saying that
you have designed a vibating glass mechanism

(hmmm... arent we all trying to build the homebuilt version of the 10k$ unit that is already patented??)

sorry, i digress,,,, you are saying that
you have designed a vibating glass mechanism that will try to
do what the ps technik does?
BUT---- if anyone ever tries to take the "dan vibramatic" apart
it will self destruct in such a way that no mere mortal could figure
it out and put it back together again???

perhaps it should be called the "dan (humpty dumpty) vibramatic"...

i commend you for your design skills and the work that you have done with just a sherline.... i just had to chuckle a little since this seems to be a reverse engineering forum for the ps technik type devices.... but you claim:
.................................................................................
Oh, ... BTW
For all interested in stealing ideas (not you):
I took some painful time to design the device in such a way that if is ever attempted to be taken apart, one will not only loose his money, but it will never have it back in one piece or learn the working mechanism. Critical adjustments are made at assembly and are unique to each unit. It is made for shooting movies and should be used as such. Now you know.
...................................................................................

im glad that your research team not only completed the task of
offering a 10,000 dollar device for a few hundred dollars, but they made it impossible to copy at the same time...

i aplaud your creative genius...
cant wait to see them offered here...

thanks dan....

Jesse Rosten · February 23rd, 2005, 01:53 AM

yes, it might seem like an odd thing to say if you consider the device "reverse engineering" but I think Dan's device is a little more than a "humpty dumpty" adapter. In theory, it should work better than the P+S adapter because it has fewer optical elements and a brighter image.

He's been working on this thing long before these DIY threads ever existed.

February 10th, 2005, 03:19 AM	#166
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	<<<-- Originally posted by Brett Erskine : Fillip- I don’t want to make this a competition between designs because Dan is selling his and I'm not going down that road. -->>> Brett, my intention was NOT the competition. just curiosity. like - what if... nothing more. sometimes is interesting to see things compared side by side. i understand that there is too many differences etc, but that was just a thought. filip __________________ in kino (sic!) veritas

February 23rd, 2005, 01:27 AM	#179
Sarena Valilis Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: hollywood , ca USA Posts: 38	anti hack anti pirtate anti ???? ok, if i understand your most recent post you are saying that you have designed a vibating glass mechanism (hmmm... arent we all trying to build the homebuilt version of the 10k$ unit that is already patented??) sorry, i digress,,,, you are saying that you have designed a vibating glass mechanism that will try to do what the ps technik does? BUT---- if anyone ever tries to take the "dan vibramatic" apart it will self destruct in such a way that no mere mortal could figure it out and put it back together again??? perhaps it should be called the "dan (humpty dumpty) vibramatic"... i commend you for your design skills and the work that you have done with just a sherline.... i just had to chuckle a little since this seems to be a reverse engineering forum for the ps technik type devices.... but you claim: ................................................................................. Oh, ... BTW For all interested in stealing ideas (not you): I took some painful time to design the device in such a way that if is ever attempted to be taken apart, one will not only loose his money, but it will never have it back in one piece or learn the working mechanism. Critical adjustments are made at assembly and are unique to each unit. It is made for shooting movies and should be used as such. Now you know. ................................................................................... im glad that your research team not only completed the task of offering a 10,000 dollar device for a few hundred dollars, but they made it impossible to copy at the same time... i aplaud your creative genius... cant wait to see them offered here... thanks dan....

February 11th, 2005, 11:33 AM	#167
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Bottom line is this: can you sell the footage and have it broadcast or in a festival? If yes, it accomplishes the purpose for a lot less. If no, it is still a very good practicing tool. Can you practice with a static just as well? Yes. Can you sell the footage? No, but you can generate interest and if the return is there.. invest and see a return on investment. But then again, if you show "this footage" and you have to explain "that footage", some people might have a hard time imagining what's going to look like. Been there many times. Unless you show the real thing, the description (of such abstract thing as the "look of footage) does not help much(IMHO) That does not mean you can not try. Finally, my Nikons of ebay are here (after 29 days from shipment) Should generate some footage. I had a filter on the rear mount for "underwater test" It does protect the GG from dust aso. However, being too close to it, might get some dust on the outside as Brett pointed out. Would you prefer no glass at all (front and rear) or glass but further away form the GG on the rear and filter on the front? If is there (front) protects but you can not blow the GG if some dust gets on the Fresnel. I have a filter now (front) and no dust on Fresnel, but what if? ............................ On the rear side I had it on and off many times and blew air a few times (safety) So: Open or closed? (front) This is because once I have the mount in place I can not put the filter. It is either there or no. (ideally would be both filters at far distanaces from the GG and clean at assembly I guess)but what if some dust was still left in there... just thinking ....

February 11th, 2005, 02:52 PM	#168
Brett Erskine Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Anaheim, CA Posts: 445	I hear ya Dan. Since no one is putting these adapters together in a "clean room" all you can do is clean it as best as possible. Anything that might remain will most likely be too small to worry about once the GG is put in motion. I would recomend you do what I have had to do - add clear filters on both sides of the adapter to seal all addition dust from getting inside. Put them both as far from the GG as possible to put any dust on them completely out of focus and unseen but remember that the front clear filter must be put in a place not to interfer with the PL mount lenses. As you know they are different from still lenses and will recess far inside - beyond thier mount. You dont want the back of the lens to hit the clear filter. Its a tricky thing to do. Good luck. P.S. When your done the whole thing might be a little quieter - but yours is already quiet so it may not matter.

February 11th, 2005, 03:56 PM	#169
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Thanks Brett, I have no intention (for now) to go PL mount. Reasons offered a few post back (in short benefits/cost/availability) They are avail, but you either have to buy them (9K and up) or rent them @$250/day. Form the hi rez still I took, I see no reason to "over do it" (for now) I'll see if a rez chart will make me change my mind. If I see a SIGNIFICANT diff, it will be an open option. FB from you guys (once I have the pics) will help me decide. Dust...dust .... dust..... to which we all return......dust... dust ....dust.....that's all that's left....(sic transit gloria mundi)

February 13th, 2005, 09:36 PM	#170
Frank Vrionis Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 93	Hi Dan. this is my first post...also my favourite thread. excuse me if this has been asked before, but when will your unit be available and how much? thanks Frank

February 13th, 2005, 10:32 PM	#171
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Welcome and "join the club";-)< After successful testing it on most popular camcorders (PD170, DVX100 and FX1)I am going through a major redesign of the whole unit in terms of mounting support, etc. In the end, the same converter can trade cameras in a minute with no additional parts required. Since most of it can be made using conventional follow or remote focus (of which there are quite a few around, that means rods, and that means sizes and matte boxes and so on. A total nightmare (to which I bring my humble contribution) When?... a good question. How much? better than the first one. When I'll know, you will know! I promise.

February 14th, 2005, 02:45 AM	#172
Frank Vrionis Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 93	great!

February 14th, 2005, 08:10 PM	#173
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	work in progress here on the new shape guys...... Planning a demo shooting on FX1 and PD170A over next weekend and of course the Rez Charts. but, meanwhile let's have some fun. Here is a clip I did (and was broadcasted twice) a while ago. Some guy smoking a piano. A bit of info: One angle (first and last images) was all I had from that concert (in Dec 2003) Frustrated, I went back to the theatre (Michel J Fox) and got it for about three hours some two weeks latter. Here is what followed: 13 takes all together (5 simultaneous with 5 cameras) (none played at the same speed for he was no machine!...?) A mixture of 1CCD, 3CCD and CMOS. This is what turned out: http://rapidshare.de/files-en/605790/best_performance_for_web.wmv.html a week latter. Just call me a "Premiere boy" for that's all I know, but: some of the shots in this clip were never seen B4 (that's how bad they are!!!) 5'long, 26Mb, 4 min download @ 150mbs, comments welcome.

February 22nd, 2005, 12:36 PM	#174
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Here are two new pics of the latest design: http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/FIRST-PICTURES/IMGA0320 Nikon mount only (for now) with rods support and (optional but necessary) CU lens. It works well with any camcorder including Sony Z1. However, every camcorder has a different distance from the base plate to the optical axes. Adjustments need to be made. I do not think I will launch in a high volume manufacturing process. Units will be made by request. If anyone is interested to order the image converter, email me off list for details and indicate the camcorder you intend to use.

February 22nd, 2005, 02:35 PM	#175
Dogus Aslan Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 56	Dan i have talked to a friend who is an expert in micro mechanics, he told me that a mobile phone vibrator uses only a few miliampers from the battery, where the average mobile phone battery gives an output somewhere between 600-800 miliampers, in time the batery loses its property and cannot give the same energy, the loss may drop alot but still there will always be energy for the vibrator. according to him the screen backlight, headphone and receiving data use the most of the battery. According to him..(who is "da man" in electric motors)..the telephone vibrator has a very short lifespan, while vibrating the burches (pieces holding the rotating rods) get corroded and the hole gets bigger making the vibrator to lose property. He suggested using a more quality motor, not mobile phone motors.

February 22nd, 2005, 03:34 PM	#176
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	I can not agree more with your friend (although from what I found, MOST vibratos need AT LEAST 20mA @ NO LOAD!!!!!!) The motor I choose needs only 4!!!!!!!mA @ less than 2V !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!under load----- while moving the GG that is! But, did I EVER said I am using a cell vibrator? Check my posts from the first to this one before turning an "assumption" in to a fact and attribute it to me. As for life of the device as is today, TIME will tell better than WORDS. I do not think I will be around for another 50 years, nor the technology will obsolete the contraption in a few years from now, but who knows, somewhere in a museum, a unit WILL work many years from now. Oh, ... BTW For all interested in stealing ideas (not you): I took some painful time to design the device in such a way that if is ever attempted to be taken apart, one will not only loose his money, but it will never have it back in one piece or learn the working mechanism. Critical adjustments are made at assembly and are unique to each unit. It is made for shooting movies and should be used as such. Now you know.

February 22nd, 2005, 04:42 PM	#177
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Interesting Dan, What are the handles for? And the rods that run vertically but don't seem to hold anything? It definitely looks cool!

February 22nd, 2005, 05:16 PM	#178
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	The handles are for hand held. The vertical rods when mounted on a plate (not photographed) will allow the whole thing to me mounted up side down so the image need not be flipped in post (just an option for lazy people like me)

February 23rd, 2005, 01:53 AM	#180
Jesse Rosten Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Redding, California Posts: 114	yes, it might seem like an odd thing to say if you consider the device "reverse engineering" but I think Dan's device is a little more than a "humpty dumpty" adapter. In theory, it should work better than the P+S adapter because it has fewer optical elements and a brighter image. He's been working on this thing long before these DIY threads ever existed.