New moving ground glass mechanism

Christian Schmitt · February 23rd, 2005, 03:56 AM

@Dan
Maybe I missed sth, but is there any technical reason the XL2 never gets mentioned to connect with your adaptor?
Or is it just that you don't have access to one?
Well, since the reason I decided to get the Canon was the possibility of directly using an adaptor between chip and lens, please make it available!
But I guess you will come up with some universal mount solution in the end anyway...
regards,

Chris

Dan Diaconu · February 23rd, 2005, 10:51 AM

Chronological re:

Sarena, please check a few pages back on this thread to get a BIGGER PICTURE (say 24/36mm?) on this ISSUE (WITH BRIGHT CORNERS TOO!!!)
or go and see the documentation of the results at www.dandiaconu.com
Warning:
Explicit pictures and videos. Do not watch if emotionally, family or in any other way related to German companies. (heart breaking) (see the pictures shot at aperture 22!!!!!!!!!! and the clips, I did not post them for me!!!!!!!!!!)
Since you are so well informed, maybe you can enlighten us with a link to P+S patent on this originally "35mm adapter" and now, miraculously recently re baptized into "IMAGE CONVERTER".
I could not find one here in Canada.

Jesse, thank you . Reverse engineering is not the case here for: First, I am not an engineer, Second is not right/dignifying to STEAL someone's work, Third, my design yields BY FAR better results than existing technology. Do not take my (or anyone's) word for it. Check the pics and footage and look over tech specs and compare.

Christian,
I did mount the converter on the lens of an XL1.
It works. But:
I am not happy with less than BEST, knowing I can get rid of the 20X lens and replace it with a c-mount lens.
I have the XL mount, I just did not have the time to dig deeper into this matter.
End note;
I had an L1 (13 years ago when they first got out) and loved every second using it (manual focus and zoom original lens) I do not feel the same for the grandkid.
Expensive for what it does. I know there are people feeling otherwise, no need to debate.

As a result of too many contradictory feelings on the price of this contraption, I will hold taking orders/manufacturing for sale until I have more footage to demo the results.
Then, the new price will be justified by facts. I will have to "put together" a DVD (uncompressed) for all interested.

Brett Erskine · February 23rd, 2005, 12:09 PM

Hey Dan nice motor. I'm guessing brushless because it sounds like mine - extremely quiet and low power usage. The only other thing I could find that was better was a ultrasonic motor but couldnt find a way to adapt it to this project. Btw the P+S Technik patent with detailed drawings and pictures has been posted in the past in one of these threads if you want to see it. I wish I had a direct link. I would think somewhere here has it.

Sarena Valilis · February 23rd, 2005, 12:38 PM

you might try the US patent office.... canada honors those by intl agreement dont they??

i think if you read the patent that you will find what is actually patented is the conept of an intermediate screen displaying the image and then photographing this image onto video. that is what your device does. not really my concern one way or the other, but if you try taking your device to a trade show im sure you will find out from the lawyers just whether or not your device infringes upon that concept...

------------------------------

i personally am going the route of getting rid of vibration in my adapter.....

Frank Ladner · February 23rd, 2005, 12:48 PM

Sarena,

I'm interested in what sort of adapter you're working on (getting rid of vibration). Are you incorporating some other type of motion like spinning, or are you using a different material such as wax?

Brett Erskine · February 23rd, 2005, 12:53 PM

Technically speaking you should get better achromatic performance if you replace the fresnel focusing screen with three elements (2 element achromat condenser and a GG designed to work with it). I tried to go down this route for a long long time and because I dont have a formal education in optics I wasnt able to find the right combo. Also you'll want to have a very high quality achromat diopter between the GG and the video camera's lens. Another expensive, pain in the ass. I decided to just use a very high quality fresnel lens focusing screen that is designed for my focal length and as far as a diopter is concerned - dont need one anymore because I'm using medium format lenses and the image on the GG is so much larger that the video camera doesnt need any help from a diopter. Less elements to degrade the quality. Works for me but remember that medium format lenses can be pricey.

Les Dit · February 23rd, 2005, 02:46 PM

I don't think that the resolution of fresnel lenses is enough to do the job. perhaps I've only seen inexpensive ones. If I recall, when you look through a fresnel, the image always looks soft or stepped looking as a result of the basic construction, using light bending small steps. Maybe it's OK for DV resolution work, however.
-Les

Brett Erskine · February 23rd, 2005, 05:15 PM

Les-
You know thats what I used to think as well because I was following text book rules of optics. Also in the begining all I saw were fresnels with fairly large grooves but screens like the Beattie and Maxwell have fresnel grooves so small that you can't even see them with the naked eye. In fact their size is so tiny that they say using anything but the most gental methods to clear dust off it could damage the grooves. Safe to say we wont see any "DIY fresnel focusing screen" threads soon ;-) You know I might be wrong about this but because the lens is broken up in these micro ridges it may capable of doing the job of a achromat lens. I say that because I have yet to see any abberation problems with my Maxwell screen. Perhaps the abberation correction is built into the geometry of the individual fresnel grooves. Not sure. Just know it works well for me.

Les Dit · February 23rd, 2005, 07:40 PM

OK, I guess I've only see cheap fresnels then. So when you hold a good one up to view through it, it looks just as clear as a regular lens? Intuitively it seems like the diffraction around the edges of each step might still cause problems. I've got some time now to work on my hotspot problem again, so I'm investigating some solutions.

Incidentally, my adapter originally started by copying the commercial version. I veered away from that design when both of my examples still had minor image vibration problems.

It's amazing how much time you can spend playing with this stuff :-)

-Les

Dan Diaconu · February 23rd, 2005, 07:49 PM

8 months FT@12-16h/day?..... more?...... enough?......

Steev Dinkins · February 23rd, 2005, 07:51 PM

Enough! Sell me what you got. :D :D

Valeriu Campan · February 23rd, 2005, 08:07 PM

Dan,
Can you give an indication about light levels required in fc or lux for shooting with let's say a Nikkor 50mm @ f2.8 with 0dB gain on a specific DV camera?

Sarena Valilis · February 23rd, 2005, 11:00 PM

for those interested the ps technik patent is #6212334....

it really isnt a great deal of help towards building your own, in my opinion.....

but people were asking for the patent number.....

Dan Diaconu · February 24th, 2005, 01:08 AM

Thank you Sarena. I just could not find it here in Canada.
I was never interested in their design, just as a curiosity. I kind of have an idea of what is inside by the way it behaves (when it comes to these things)
Val, I did shoot a plasma "thing" (one of those that you touch the glass globe and lights up your palm) though the converter. I do not know the light level, but I did not get much better image with the camcorder by itself. I do not think I loose any light. Please go to my site and watch this clip:

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/Brightnes-tests/fourth_brightness_test_avi.wmv

Look at the light level behind the Fresnel. If you think is more than behind the ordinary GG, or even more than the ambient light, than I do not loose ANY light. I have the feeling I gain LIGHT (besides the FULL 24/36 FRAME without ANY vigneting on the corners!!!!! as normal or ultra fin, holographic, waxed, polished or whatever kind of GG you want to use instead, be it static, spinning, crawling or jumping)
Check it out. I did not do all those tests for me!!! Sorry but looks like I am just talking to myself here. I did a lot of testing and publish the EXPLICIT results in stills and video and I still get questions.

You just can not believe what you see, right? Neither the stills nor the clips.
I am forced to make a few units and send them out to people. They will get footage that will convince anyone better than I can (by the looks of it)

Steev, you are right! Enough is enough.
I was only hoping to go out and start shooting something but looks like I am cursed to spend more time on the lathe.....

Frank Vrionis · February 24th, 2005, 03:59 AM

Dan. Don't worry. We are so excited we don't beleive our eyes!

February 23rd, 2005, 12:38 PM	#184
Sarena Valilis Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: hollywood , ca USA Posts: 38	patent you might try the US patent office.... canada honors those by intl agreement dont they?? i think if you read the patent that you will find what is actually patented is the conept of an intermediate screen displaying the image and then photographing this image onto video. that is what your device does. not really my concern one way or the other, but if you try taking your device to a trade show im sure you will find out from the lawyers just whether or not your device infringes upon that concept... ------------------------------ i personally am going the route of getting rid of vibration in my adapter.....

February 23rd, 2005, 02:46 PM	#187
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	fresnel softens image? I don't think that the resolution of fresnel lenses is enough to do the job. perhaps I've only seen inexpensive ones. If I recall, when you look through a fresnel, the image always looks soft or stepped looking as a result of the basic construction, using light bending small steps. Maybe it's OK for DV resolution work, however. -Les

February 23rd, 2005, 11:00 PM	#193
Sarena Valilis Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: hollywood , ca USA Posts: 38	6212334 for those interested the ps technik patent is #6212334.... it really isnt a great deal of help towards building your own, in my opinion..... but people were asking for the patent number.....

February 23rd, 2005, 03:56 AM	#181
Christian Schmitt Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 59	@Dan Maybe I missed sth, but is there any technical reason the XL2 never gets mentioned to connect with your adaptor? Or is it just that you don't have access to one? Well, since the reason I decided to get the Canon was the possibility of directly using an adaptor between chip and lens, please make it available! But I guess you will come up with some universal mount solution in the end anyway... regards, Chris

February 23rd, 2005, 10:51 AM	#182
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Chronological re: Sarena, please check a few pages back on this thread to get a BIGGER PICTURE (say 24/36mm?) on this ISSUE (WITH BRIGHT CORNERS TOO!!!) or go and see the documentation of the results at www.dandiaconu.com Warning: Explicit pictures and videos. Do not watch if emotionally, family or in any other way related to German companies. (heart breaking) (see the pictures shot at aperture 22!!!!!!!!!! and the clips, I did not post them for me!!!!!!!!!!) Since you are so well informed, maybe you can enlighten us with a link to P+S patent on this originally "35mm adapter" and now, miraculously recently re baptized into "IMAGE CONVERTER". I could not find one here in Canada. Jesse, thank you . Reverse engineering is not the case here for: First, I am not an engineer, Second is not right/dignifying to STEAL someone's work, Third, my design yields BY FAR better results than existing technology. Do not take my (or anyone's) word for it. Check the pics and footage and look over tech specs and compare. Christian, I did mount the converter on the lens of an XL1. It works. But: I am not happy with less than BEST, knowing I can get rid of the 20X lens and replace it with a c-mount lens. I have the XL mount, I just did not have the time to dig deeper into this matter. End note; I had an L1 (13 years ago when they first got out) and loved every second using it (manual focus and zoom original lens) I do not feel the same for the grandkid. Expensive for what it does. I know there are people feeling otherwise, no need to debate. As a result of too many contradictory feelings on the price of this contraption, I will hold taking orders/manufacturing for sale until I have more footage to demo the results. Then, the new price will be justified by facts. I will have to "put together" a DVD (uncompressed) for all interested.

February 23rd, 2005, 12:09 PM	#183
Brett Erskine Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Anaheim, CA Posts: 445	Hey Dan nice motor. I'm guessing brushless because it sounds like mine - extremely quiet and low power usage. The only other thing I could find that was better was a ultrasonic motor but couldnt find a way to adapt it to this project. Btw the P+S Technik patent with detailed drawings and pictures has been posted in the past in one of these threads if you want to see it. I wish I had a direct link. I would think somewhere here has it.

February 23rd, 2005, 12:48 PM	#185
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Sarena, I'm interested in what sort of adapter you're working on (getting rid of vibration). Are you incorporating some other type of motion like spinning, or are you using a different material such as wax?

February 23rd, 2005, 12:53 PM	#186
Brett Erskine Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Anaheim, CA Posts: 445	Technically speaking you should get better achromatic performance if you replace the fresnel focusing screen with three elements (2 element achromat condenser and a GG designed to work with it). I tried to go down this route for a long long time and because I dont have a formal education in optics I wasnt able to find the right combo. Also you'll want to have a very high quality achromat diopter between the GG and the video camera's lens. Another expensive, pain in the ass. I decided to just use a very high quality fresnel lens focusing screen that is designed for my focal length and as far as a diopter is concerned - dont need one anymore because I'm using medium format lenses and the image on the GG is so much larger that the video camera doesnt need any help from a diopter. Less elements to degrade the quality. Works for me but remember that medium format lenses can be pricey.

February 23rd, 2005, 05:15 PM	#188
Brett Erskine Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Anaheim, CA Posts: 445	Les- You know thats what I used to think as well because I was following text book rules of optics. Also in the begining all I saw were fresnels with fairly large grooves but screens like the Beattie and Maxwell have fresnel grooves so small that you can't even see them with the naked eye. In fact their size is so tiny that they say using anything but the most gental methods to clear dust off it could damage the grooves. Safe to say we wont see any "DIY fresnel focusing screen" threads soon ;-) You know I might be wrong about this but because the lens is broken up in these micro ridges it may capable of doing the job of a achromat lens. I say that because I have yet to see any abberation problems with my Maxwell screen. Perhaps the abberation correction is built into the geometry of the individual fresnel grooves. Not sure. Just know it works well for me.

February 23rd, 2005, 07:40 PM	#189
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	OK, I guess I've only see cheap fresnels then. So when you hold a good one up to view through it, it looks just as clear as a regular lens? Intuitively it seems like the diffraction around the edges of each step might still cause problems. I've got some time now to work on my hotspot problem again, so I'm investigating some solutions. Incidentally, my adapter originally started by copying the commercial version. I veered away from that design when both of my examples still had minor image vibration problems. It's amazing how much time you can spend playing with this stuff :-) -Les

February 23rd, 2005, 07:49 PM	#190
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	8 months FT@12-16h/day?..... more?...... enough?......

February 23rd, 2005, 07:51 PM	#191
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	Enough! Sell me what you got. :D :D

February 23rd, 2005, 08:07 PM	#192
Valeriu Campan Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 223	Dan, Can you give an indication about light levels required in fc or lux for shooting with let's say a Nikkor 50mm @ f2.8 with 0dB gain on a specific DV camera?

February 24th, 2005, 01:08 AM	#194
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Thank you Sarena. I just could not find it here in Canada. I was never interested in their design, just as a curiosity. I kind of have an idea of what is inside by the way it behaves (when it comes to these things) Val, I did shoot a plasma "thing" (one of those that you touch the glass globe and lights up your palm) though the converter. I do not know the light level, but I did not get much better image with the camcorder by itself. I do not think I loose any light. Please go to my site and watch this clip: http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/Brightnes-tests/fourth_brightness_test_avi.wmv Look at the light level behind the Fresnel. If you think is more than behind the ordinary GG, or even more than the ambient light, than I do not loose ANY light. I have the feeling I gain LIGHT (besides the FULL 24/36 FRAME without ANY vigneting on the corners!!!!! as normal or ultra fin, holographic, waxed, polished or whatever kind of GG you want to use instead, be it static, spinning, crawling or jumping) Check it out. I did not do all those tests for me!!! Sorry but looks like I am just talking to myself here. I did a lot of testing and publish the EXPLICIT results in stills and video and I still get questions. You just can not believe what you see, right? Neither the stills nor the clips. I am forced to make a few units and send them out to people. They will get footage that will convince anyone better than I can (by the looks of it) Steev, you are right! Enough is enough. I was only hoping to go out and start shooting something but looks like I am cursed to spend more time on the lathe.....

February 24th, 2005, 03:59 AM	#195
Frank Vrionis Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 93	Dan. Don't worry. We are so excited we don't beleive our eyes!