New moving ground glass mechanism

[Charles Papert]

I've seen this sort of thing done a synchronized iris/shutter pull. Exposure stays constant, but depth of field increases or dimishes. You need a good amount of light though.

[Dan Diaconu]

Fair enough. Is the synchronization between aperture and shutter speed on MP cameras. Start with aperture 2 and shutter angle of..let's say 20 degrees and as the shot progresses, the aperture closes to 11 (or 16) while the shutter angle opens to 172 or 180 (to compensate the exposure).

But that is NOT what I was aiming at.

In very short:

Wide lens squared to a wall. Resolution chart is sharp in the whole frame.
Now, to obtain a STRIPE of sharp section in the frame (horizontal or vertical) anywhere in the frame (left, center, right or top/bottom) and be able to ROLL that stripe in the frame from left to right (or from top to bottom).
Subsequently, a whole sharp frame can turn to a stripe to guide and focus viewer's attention to a detail.
All this while the GG is dancing with wolves.

This is in very short what I was mumbling in the previous posts.
It must have been very confusing since I have introduced a dolly and movement in the shot.
It can be done. Worth it? you tell me.

[Charles Papert]

Would be interesting...of course, with DI's becoming the norm, might be easier to work something like this in post. Been seeing plenty of ramp shots being effected by shooting all at 150 fps and pulling frames as needed (bit of a bone to those of us who have invested in a Preston F/X unit!)

[Dan Diaconu]

I do not see use for it every day. By the contrary. But being there available might tempt and inspire some to use it.
I am positive it could be done in post, but I am playing my part in an attempt to save some work for production (I love editing, but spending 100 hours in post vs 1 in production to get the same result is what most producers ignore till the bill comes) Just a personal opinion.

[Joel Aaron]

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : I do not see use for it every day. By the contrary. But being there available might tempt and inspire some to use it.
I am positive it could be done in post, but I am playing my part in an attempt to save some work for production (I love editing, but spending 100 hours in post vs 1 in production to get the same result is what most producers ignore till the bill comes) Just a personal opinion. -->>>

Maybe I'm a little better in post than you are because to me I'd much rather do that effect in post than on the set. It's an easy post effect to do and you'd have much more precise control... plus you could throw in subtle color corrections to match the mask etc. Render time isn't a big issue on type of thing. It's not rendering 3D objects or anything.

My advice is stick with the high quality shallow depth of field and focusing stuff. That's not easy to do in post (rotoscoping or blue screen) and A LOT of people want to use it all the time on every shoot. :-)

I think you should use your considerable ingenuity to figure out how to outsource the manufacturing so you don't need to make very much per unit because you're not spending ANY time making any units. In the end, that'll be a lot more profitable, IMHO. It may be the only way to make money on all the work you've done. You should be fishing or inventing new things while this one is being made, sold and shipped.

[Dan Diaconu]

I do not know how "easy" is to do it in post. I know little about video editing. Also the rule says: get a clean shot, play with it in post at no risk so, I buy that.

As for outsourcing and such, I do not know the market size and how many potential customers would "see" the diff between existing products and what I have done. (I have both mini and Pro35 demo DVD's here) To get this thing out of my hair and do something else, would mean to sell the darn thing and let someone else make it happen since I do not believe in revenue based on percentage and agreements and such. So, for all the big or small fans out there, here is a ground floor opportunity. Figure out the market size, how many units could be sold at what price, talk to your rich relatives and email me if you have any good ideas. I am open and resourceful (follow focus, hothead etc)
As for fishing....been there once (when I was eight) and almost cut my veins. Patience is a VIRTUE....I do not have. *smile*

[Joel Aaron]

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu :
Also the rule says: get a clean shot, play with it in post at no risk so, I buy that.
-->>>

Forgetting this specific example for the moment, I think that's a "rule" whose time has come and gone. It's still a great guideline.

I think a better rule is use the best (or most cost effective) tool for the job.

Sometimes that means getting the shot in camera because doing it in post would be incredibly time consuming and other times it means not paying 40 people to wait around 4 hours to create something on the set that would take 1 guy 2 hours in post to do.

At least I think that's what the Robert Rodriguez's out there are doing. Jelly guns, miniatures and latex one second, 3D effects the next.

[Dan Diaconu]

>>>>I think a better rule is use the best (or most cost effective) tool for the job<<<

I could not agree more with it.
But, you still need "da shoot" for post, right? So, while all 40 pips worked hard and the set up was done, out of 6-10 takes, one or two could be done "that way" at no additional expense... (same lights, moves, set-up, etc just another take...) in which the assistant rolls another knob than the focus knob. Cost effective? Just another option anyway...(or at least a hint for post as what the director may be after...)

[John Jay]

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : OK,...
200 readers from post to post, 14 downloads (less mine) and no comments. Does any of the 14 that saw the clip care to share impressions? -->>>

its been awhile since I checked progress on these adapters, glad to see theres been great improvement.

I realised about a while back that DV encoding and Bokeh dont really go together. In fact DV encoding is optimised for imagery with large DOF and has great difficulty handling the subtle gradients that are found within Bokeh. Rotating the image in post and recompressing with DV is double trouble.

I am referring to the grid of pixel block artifacts as soon as the Bokeh kicks in - which I can see at 3 metre from a 32" Wega widescreen TV.

I suspect better results will be obtained with a more suitable codec to handle the Bokeh uniformly.

A 35mm adapter on a DV camera is a waste imho. (unless you like the fishnet tights look)

maybe m2t will perform a lot better- uncompressed component certainly will

[Dan Diaconu]

Thanks a lot John for bringing in the "magic word".

Although I have some samples on the site, is always inspiring to see other images.... just lovely....
Here are some of the results from goggle:

http://www.bokeh.de/en/

http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column49/

>>>In fact .......trouble<<<

I humbly disagree with some portrayed results as follows:

>>> DV encoding has great difficulty handling the subtle gradients that are found within Bokeh.<<<

Let us assume we do not deal with an image converter at all, but the camcorder itself, and we do not have many or any different objects in the frame but a blanket (pastel colors if need be) A good substitute for Bokeh (I would guess) According to your statement, we should see the artifacts all over this entire surface? I have seen as much as there is to see from hi rez static stills and footage both burned on a DVD on a 27" display and I am (surprisingly!!!!) happy with the results (unless I though I had my glasses and I did not!)

>>>Rotating the image in post and recompressing with DV is double trouble<<<
For me, (as I would prefer to continue use Premiere (and if need be Pro) yes. That is trouble. The program does not do the rotation of the image clean. However, I have done the same tests in Avid, and to my satisfaction (and bitterness I do not know it in depth) the rotated image was clean as a whistle. But I… flipped the camcorder, so.. the footage is up right (even for me as premiere boy)

>>>A 35mm adapter on a DV camera is a waste imho<<<

I have no opinion on this matter. I usually split the thread in many... way tooo many.... and seek spots on the sun.(with a 9mm ;-)<!!!

HD display is still in its infancy (market size) On most TV's the HD or DV originated material will not make a diff. (hold your horses there!) I am not blind (yet), I am talking resolution only. Color rendering better, yes, ability to hold highlights, yes, many other functions, yes. But the current TVs are not capable of showing all those 600, 700 and 900 lines of resolution from a film transfer, so why bother? Are they there anyway?
But (IMHO) all that is just as useless as 24P. (hold again)
Until the TV/display will be able to flash at my eyes 24 distinct pictures in one second, all that "fuss" to shoot 24P and end up with 60 fields anyway is nothing but a "sales gimmick" that (surprisingly) has passed, has been implemented and embraced. (shake head in disbelief)
I saw it all right (24P) on HD screen. The only (and nearest IMHO motion jitter) comes from older films sold on VHS in which 1234 are original frames and the 5th is fourth repeated.
I have I robot" on DVD. I played back the movie frame by frame. I was shocked to see 30 distinct frames (while shot on film with Panavision at 24fps) ...... ............
point being:
even material originated on film 24 fps (not 24P), when played back on TV from DVD shows 30 frames (soooo smooth like any video material) so why bother with all this nonsense (I can already hear the stake burning and the inquisition breaking my door to get me for heresy.......) but..... I'll say it again before I burn: e purr si muove....;-)<
(I am talking about GG not the earth which stands still and the sun goes around it...)

So, DV can deliver fantastic results in the right hands as well as HD could fail a less experienced shooter. Hd is not a "magic bullet" . However it is the future and the future is now. The image converter is optically ready for HD. (I still need some good glass to shoot a test though, damn!)

For a straight to DVD release, I think is just as good as the paying market it addresses.
(90% of the movies made these days are not worth the plastic support, but…hey,.... they sell. despite what I think… .aaaaargh… the inqui

[John Jay]

"once you have seen The Devil's Grid, you are blighted for life"

I am referring to the grid of resolution 8x8 pixels, which imprints itself onto the footage (like a watermark) whenever Bokeh is around.

Try this, with a DV camcorder walk about the back garden with your camera out of focus (this is pure Bokeh). Then play the footage back on your TV straight out of the camcorder. It is more visible on a TV rather than a PC monitor for some reason

All I can say is that I can see the grid, maybe some cant but with practice you will, and then you will always know what to look for.

[Dan Diaconu]

John,
There was a slight misunderstanding. What is playing back straight form a camcorder on TV got to do with what I have done? I do not have a garden, so I will skip this test, but I saw the FX full well. It is nothing but terrifying. But that is not the best out of mini DV. That is the reason I burned a DVD with footage straight from camcorder and also with the image converter. To SEE how good DV can be, and is OK.

[Brett Erskine]

Dan is it okay if I reveal how you plan on doing selective focus DOF for wide lenses or do you prefer to keep it secret because you might market it? It's scary but we think technically alike. Back in the day I tinkered with this exact technique and it works but decided it wasnt worth the effort. I'd love to see someone else follow thru with it though. In fact now that I think about it I know they have setups already for this these days but its designed for full sized motion picture cameras so yeah make one for DV.

While I'm on the subject of crazy ideas your focus assist device (very nice btw) reminds me of a 3D camera system I thought up. It would allow two cameras to either pigeon toe in with its relation ship with the focus of the lens. This would give a more accurate 3D effect because they would be working exactly like our own eyes do. Or I had a idea for a similar device and use it to create a special fx in 3D by having the two cameras pigeon toe AND/OR push in or away from each other to create a very strange 3D effect that hard to explain. Basically it appears as if the 3D effect has been exagerated and things can be stretched to pop out at the audience. This could be done at any time for dramatic reasons. Anyways its nice to see I'm not the only one thats crazy enough to tinker with this. Heres to being just a tad bit obsessed (or was it insane...I forget)

Charles-
I didnt know anyone had done the iris/shutter angle cross pull yet. I've been begging to find a script that called for it because I thought the two hadnt been used in this way yet but apparently it has. Oh well. I'd love to see the film you saw it done in.

[Dan Diaconu]

As it happens, last night I saw the movie "the final cut" with Robin Williams. To my astonishment I saw the beginning credits with this very effect. I shook my head in disbelief. I'm "on the ball" but late? (or ahead? thinking life action?) It is true, it was not life action, but the point is the "idea" of having all the credits sharp and then going soft from one end to the other as going away from the screen......... This is the "collective consciousness" at work my friends. We all "tap in" the same pool of ideas at one point or another, but some are ahead (way ahead) and take a big credit (Leonardo, Tesla...)and others a bit behind. I have nothing but admiration, but is right? This is only the result of "high interest" in one field, focused attention and TIME available and devoted exclusively to a task. I see that every day at work here on this board and I saw it in other fields as well (computer cooling, hobbies etc) Oh well.....
Bottom line Brett, you do not have to "blow my cover", I can do that myself just as well (or better;-)< )....lol.....
Actually from the explicit shoots, is not that hard to figure that the focal plane would not be squared to the lens anymore but in an angle, having only a "slice" at the right distance from the lens with "ahead" and "behind" going soft. To achieve "that" "in take" is a bit more complicated. Easier said than done. Actually thinking of it, I can see EVERY ONE testing a static converter FIGHTING THIS VERY EFFECT to achieve the square ness of the GG.......
I did again some tests (this time aiming for it) and the "vision" was confirmed (no, the shaky was not there). Nice or no... a matter of taste. A lot of applications? Who knows? I actually have a shot like that (that may have triggered the late thought)done with the system I made last August and in which the screen (although plane movement) was not perfectly squared to the lens. Nice? Is relative but I could post the clip. All the time? No way. Is suffocating to seek sharp. Gentile swing in and out.... well.. that would be very nice but a lot of work...
The "squishy" lens of Clairmont was used on a movie (I do not know of the second) Once the effect is "done with" in one flick, one may not seem original to use it again....
One exception is time freeze (matrix) Is too nice to go away.....

>>>>>reminds me of a 3D camera system I thought up........<<<<
It is only common sense the thought you had.
I was shocked to "feel" how "disturbing is" to see the binoculars NOT going inwards as you change focus (same thing for about the same application) Again, precision mechanics to converge the lens all together maybe 2 degrees? No wonder they did not bother yet.
List is long and sooner or later (when they are done) we will all wonder what "took THEM so long to figure it out" for it only makes sense.....

Sane or insane... who is to define and then who to draw the line? Is there a line (or just a soft focus) or is it just me looking for my glasses.....

[Cosmin Rotaru]

Hi Dan,

" is not that hard to figure that the focal plane would not be squared to the lens anymore but in an angle, having only a "slice" at the right distance from the lens with "ahead" and "behind" going soft"

Tried that! :) As you tilt the GG, it goes out of the focal plane of the 35mm lens but also outside the focal distance of the camcorder (I might confuse some terms here, but I hope you understant what I mean). The think is that one side of the image is more out of focus than the other... It must be something with the backfocus (the 355mm lens) or the focus of the camcorder... (I have a feeling that this could be use to properly adjust the backfocus and the camcorder focus - tilting the GG on an axis going throu the midle... - stupid idea, ha? :) ).
Anyway, tilt the GG (up/down) and then the camcorder (left/right) but framing the same rectangle. You will now have just a spot (not a "slice") in focus. :)