New moving ground glass mechanism

Valeriu Campan · January 28th, 2005, 12:22 AM

Awesome achievment, Dan!
I am ready for it!
Do you have a time frame?
Would it be available in other mounts (Canon, Nikon, PL)?

Dan Diaconu · January 28th, 2005, 01:28 AM

Thank you Val,
I am considering a few alternatives about production.
I'll post the news in some magazines and here when the time comes.
About mounts; I will most likely start with Nikon (fixed) and maybe go for other mounts later. So far, the fact that one is not limited to a wide aperture to work with is a BIG bonus:
see some of the pics on the site; were taken @5.6 on a 200mm at night. I think that is good enough (and limited only to the camcorder's sensitivity)

Valeriu Campan · January 28th, 2005, 04:52 PM

Though I have a full kit of top Nikon glass for stills work, I think that a PL mount would be a great option. Full field 35mm gives a depth of field that makes it more difficult to work with in a production environement, where you have to shoot xx pages of script per day. The addition of various readily available accessories (matte boxes, follow focus...) and not mentioning the speed and the consistency of certain sets of lenses (contrast, accutance, color rendition) makes the PL a very important option.
IMO the full field 35mm (24x36mm) is nice to be used for certain effects, for a look that can be welcomed or sustained in a short, music video, commercial but not neceserally for a full length narative feature, unless you really want it, and, why not use it if it's out there.
Having the PL mount will open and create interest about your adaptor to a wider variety of potential users as well.
I should probably stop here in advocating this, because I might be flamed badly, we are discussing alternative imaging methods...
Congrats again
PS What is the noise level of the adaptor?

Aaron Shaw · January 28th, 2005, 05:26 PM

I'm not sure shooting full frame 35mm vs cinema 35mm sized frame has anything to do with the DOF. If anything shooting cinema would give the appearance of a shallower DOF.

Gary McClurg · January 28th, 2005, 06:22 PM

Dan, looks great.

The night stuff at the gas station how'd you shoot that? I mean lighting wise.

Also do you lose any stops like the other adapters?

Dogus Aslan · January 28th, 2005, 07:49 PM

Congratulations Dan,

i dont know if this has been brought up before but...

what is the system of the groundglass? does it spin oscilate?
what kind of ground glass did u use?

keep up the good work!

Aaron Shaw · January 28th, 2005, 08:22 PM

Not Dan but I think I can answer some of those questions. Dan can correct me if I am wrong:

1) oscillating ground glass
2) beattie screen

Dan Diaconu · January 28th, 2005, 08:33 PM

Thank you Gents for your sustained interest. It will pay off.
Val said: (Simon says....:-)
>>>Full field 35mm gives a depth of field that makes it more difficult to work with in a production environment, where you have to shoot xx pages of script per day<<<<
and also:
>>>>IMO the full field 35mm (24x36mm) is nice to be used for certain effects, for a look that can be welcomed or sustained in a short, music video, commercial but not necessarily for a full length narrative feature, unless you really want it, and, why not use it if it's out there.<<<<<<

For those that fully know the following, excuse me reiterating basics here. Is just expressing personal understandings of the field (video, still and MP) BTW, Val, relax, please, you said nothing wrong, is just a different perspective as follows.

Now:

For ANY given format (16mm, 35mm, 60mm and larger as in still photography and smaller such as 2/3", 1/3" down to 1/6"!!!!!
as in the Panasonic GS200 I am using for my tests:-)<
the "NORMAL" lens (as focal length) is the one that will produce an image as seen by the naked eye and is, FOR ANAY GIVEN FORMAT equal to the diagonal of the format.
In MP, for an 18/24mm frame, the diagonal of that frame is 30mm. That is why, the "normal" is 32mm. For the same reason in still photography (24/36) the "normal" is 50mm (although it should be 43.26mm)
Now, that we've got that out of the way:

Imagine a "perfect" lens (call it relay lens if you want) that picks up an image from a GG and projects it on a CCD or CMOS.

First we first use a Zeiss 32mm to get an image on an 18/24 GG. Say that Zeiss lens resolves 100 lines/cm
(these figures are "made up" to ease the understanding of the point, OK?????)
How many vertical lines can we see form the GG using Zeiss? 240 lines.
Now we switch the Zeiss with a Nikon 50mm projecting the same image as seen before (same perspective, same etc)
on a 24/36mm GG . (the same "perfect" relay lens will be used) BUT!!!!
Lets say Nikon can only resolve 65 lines/cm (in real life is better than this, but let's just pretend)
How many sharp lines will Nikon project on the 36mm available? 65X3.6=234 lines.
That is not all.
Even if the difference is greater than depicted in the previous example (favoring Zeiss), the following factors should also be considered:
The "final" "movie" will end up (best case scenario) on a digital display (50" plasma) and not on a xx feet/xx feet theatre. Right?
Why? Because even if one will attempt to transfer material from the CCD (recorded by the natural lens of the camcorder) onto film for theatre, the magnification ratio does not help him much. Now, if one spends all that money on sets, props, talent, etc (thinking theatre) might as well use film (or HD). Otherwise, release it on DVD and call it a day.
The whole idea (with this adapters) is to maintain the "scent" of "film" (whatever is left of it) without the cost. Right?
Than, (and that's a wrap on this subject) if $$$$$$$$$$ is the "name of the game" why get Zeiss involved here?
They are too good (and too expensive) for this game.
If used on a Hi Def camera, YES, by all means (but if the producers find out they have a "choice", watch out!!)
They are indeed color corrected, they do not breath (while focusing) they come with the gear mounted and many other goodies......but:
will a tiny breath of focus from a Nikon be as annoying on a regular TV set as it would be in the theatre. No. Why? Size. Will MOST notice? ...... Who knows?.........
Anyway, this is my understanding on the subject and feel free to express your POV. Back.
Val, for noise level I have a short clip on my site. I would call it acceptable. I have heard many MP cameras WAY worse (but most readers on this forum are used with camcorder comfort and mic on it! (close to the lens that is)
If it would be a dead quiet recoding studio, a blimp might be needed or...... boom the mic.
Right now, if I hold it in front of my at 30cm I can not hear it (unless I follow in Beethoven's footsteps) I can hear it if I hold it next to my (right) ear (never tried the left one)
Garry, thanks for reminding me one of the tests I skipped till now. Light loss. Check out my site by tomorrow and you will see. (I have noticed an increase!!!! instead of loss of light! due to the focusing screen) Here is a test you can do now: take a magnifying sheet from a $ store, aim a camcorder towards a well lit wall and take a light reading. Then, keep the focusing screen at its focal length in front of the camcorder and take another reading. That is how much light I loose. Let me put it this way. The sun does not burn your skin, but if you use a lens, you might smell the brightness dif (lol)
As for those shots, I used the avail light. Frame, focus, shoot. Glad you like it. I'll be banned soon for the long posts here, so enjoy them while I am still with you.

Dan Diaconu · January 28th, 2005, 08:47 PM

Damn, I am back. Did you miss me?
THX for the congrats.
Beattie and ............
I would not call a circular movement an "oscilation"
Oscilation (as I understand it) is a movement between two points. That is not it. Is circular. Glad you like it. More footage today. Stay tuned.

Justin Burris · January 28th, 2005, 11:29 PM

Dan,
So the stuff on your website was shot with a Beattie screen?

Dan Diaconu · January 28th, 2005, 11:36 PM

yes

Kyle Edwards · January 28th, 2005, 11:53 PM

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums...underwater.wmv

Just making it right click save as.

Hyun Shin · January 29th, 2005, 04:30 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : Damn, I am back. Did you miss me?
THX for the congrats.
Beattie and ............
I would not call a circular movement an "oscilation"
Oscilation (as I understand it) is a movement between two points. That is not it. Is circular. Glad you like it. More footage today. Stay tuned. -->>>

let me guess bettie screen + circular vibrator from cell phone

Dan Diaconu · January 29th, 2005, 09:48 AM

of course.... try it!

Dan Diaconu · January 29th, 2005, 10:45 PM

Some updates:
ALL new footage is relevant. (most clips are 1M only)
(Premiere has artifacts @flip so I did not invert the image).
Some clips are 5sec. short HiRez and RELEVANT on many issues.
Relevant tests about GG brightness and vigneting (hence size left avail for a pic/video)
Same site:
www.dandiaconu.com
Thanks for stopping by.

PS. Leave a comment if you like what you see or if it helps you in any way....

January 29th, 2005, 04:30 AM	#133
Hyun Shin Tourist Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: honolulu, Hi Posts: 2	<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : Damn, I am back. Did you miss me? THX for the congrats. Beattie and ............ I would not call a circular movement an "oscilation" Oscilation (as I understand it) is a movement between two points. That is not it. Is circular. Glad you like it. More footage today. Stay tuned. -->>> let me guess bettie screen + circular vibrator from cell phone __________________ Just do it!

January 28th, 2005, 12:22 AM	#121
Valeriu Campan Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 223	Awesome achievment, Dan! I am ready for it! Do you have a time frame? Would it be available in other mounts (Canon, Nikon, PL)?

January 28th, 2005, 01:28 AM	#122
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Thank you Val, I am considering a few alternatives about production. I'll post the news in some magazines and here when the time comes. About mounts; I will most likely start with Nikon (fixed) and maybe go for other mounts later. So far, the fact that one is not limited to a wide aperture to work with is a BIG bonus: see some of the pics on the site; were taken @5.6 on a 200mm at night. I think that is good enough (and limited only to the camcorder's sensitivity)

January 28th, 2005, 04:52 PM	#123
Valeriu Campan Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 223	Though I have a full kit of top Nikon glass for stills work, I think that a PL mount would be a great option. Full field 35mm gives a depth of field that makes it more difficult to work with in a production environement, where you have to shoot xx pages of script per day. The addition of various readily available accessories (matte boxes, follow focus...) and not mentioning the speed and the consistency of certain sets of lenses (contrast, accutance, color rendition) makes the PL a very important option. IMO the full field 35mm (24x36mm) is nice to be used for certain effects, for a look that can be welcomed or sustained in a short, music video, commercial but not neceserally for a full length narative feature, unless you really want it, and, why not use it if it's out there. Having the PL mount will open and create interest about your adaptor to a wider variety of potential users as well. I should probably stop here in advocating this, because I might be flamed badly, we are discussing alternative imaging methods... Congrats again PS What is the noise level of the adaptor?

January 28th, 2005, 05:26 PM	#124
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	I'm not sure shooting full frame 35mm vs cinema 35mm sized frame has anything to do with the DOF. If anything shooting cinema would give the appearance of a shallower DOF.

January 28th, 2005, 06:22 PM	#125
Gary McClurg Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Springfield, MO, USA Posts: 389	Dan, looks great. The night stuff at the gas station how'd you shoot that? I mean lighting wise. Also do you lose any stops like the other adapters?

January 28th, 2005, 07:49 PM	#126
Dogus Aslan Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 56	Congratulations Dan, i dont know if this has been brought up before but... what is the system of the groundglass? does it spin oscilate? what kind of ground glass did u use? keep up the good work!

January 28th, 2005, 08:22 PM	#127
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Not Dan but I think I can answer some of those questions. Dan can correct me if I am wrong: 1) oscillating ground glass 2) beattie screen

January 28th, 2005, 08:33 PM	#128
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Thank you Gents for your sustained interest. It will pay off. Val said: (Simon says....:-) >>>Full field 35mm gives a depth of field that makes it more difficult to work with in a production environment, where you have to shoot xx pages of script per day<<<< and also: >>>>IMO the full field 35mm (24x36mm) is nice to be used for certain effects, for a look that can be welcomed or sustained in a short, music video, commercial but not necessarily for a full length narrative feature, unless you really want it, and, why not use it if it's out there.<<<<<< For those that fully know the following, excuse me reiterating basics here. Is just expressing personal understandings of the field (video, still and MP) BTW, Val, relax, please, you said nothing wrong, is just a different perspective as follows. Now: For ANY given format (16mm, 35mm, 60mm and larger as in still photography and smaller such as 2/3", 1/3" down to 1/6"!!!!! as in the Panasonic GS200 I am using for my tests:-)< the "NORMAL" lens (as focal length) is the one that will produce an image as seen by the naked eye and is, FOR ANAY GIVEN FORMAT equal to the diagonal of the format. In MP, for an 18/24mm frame, the diagonal of that frame is 30mm. That is why, the "normal" is 32mm. For the same reason in still photography (24/36) the "normal" is 50mm (although it should be 43.26mm) Now, that we've got that out of the way: Imagine a "perfect" lens (call it relay lens if you want) that picks up an image from a GG and projects it on a CCD or CMOS. First we first use a Zeiss 32mm to get an image on an 18/24 GG. Say that Zeiss lens resolves 100 lines/cm (these figures are "made up" to ease the understanding of the point, OK?????) How many vertical lines can we see form the GG using Zeiss? 240 lines. Now we switch the Zeiss with a Nikon 50mm projecting the same image as seen before (same perspective, same etc) on a 24/36mm GG . (the same "perfect" relay lens will be used) BUT!!!! Lets say Nikon can only resolve 65 lines/cm (in real life is better than this, but let's just pretend) How many sharp lines will Nikon project on the 36mm available? 65X3.6=234 lines. That is not all. Even if the difference is greater than depicted in the previous example (favoring Zeiss), the following factors should also be considered: The "final" "movie" will end up (best case scenario) on a digital display (50" plasma) and not on a xx feet/xx feet theatre. Right? Why? Because even if one will attempt to transfer material from the CCD (recorded by the natural lens of the camcorder) onto film for theatre, the magnification ratio does not help him much. Now, if one spends all that money on sets, props, talent, etc (thinking theatre) might as well use film (or HD). Otherwise, release it on DVD and call it a day. The whole idea (with this adapters) is to maintain the "scent" of "film" (whatever is left of it) without the cost. Right? Than, (and that's a wrap on this subject) if $$$$$$$$$$ is the "name of the game" why get Zeiss involved here? They are too good (and too expensive) for this game. If used on a Hi Def camera, YES, by all means (but if the producers find out they have a "choice", watch out!!) They are indeed color corrected, they do not breath (while focusing) they come with the gear mounted and many other goodies......but: will a tiny breath of focus from a Nikon be as annoying on a regular TV set as it would be in the theatre. No. Why? Size. Will MOST notice? ...... Who knows?......... Anyway, this is my understanding on the subject and feel free to express your POV. Back. Val, for noise level I have a short clip on my site. I would call it acceptable. I have heard many MP cameras WAY worse (but most readers on this forum are used with camcorder comfort and mic on it! (close to the lens that is) If it would be a dead quiet recoding studio, a blimp might be needed or...... boom the mic. Right now, if I hold it in front of my at 30cm I can not hear it (unless I follow in Beethoven's footsteps) I can hear it if I hold it next to my (right) ear (never tried the left one) Garry, thanks for reminding me one of the tests I skipped till now. Light loss. Check out my site by tomorrow and you will see. (I have noticed an increase!!!! instead of loss of light! due to the focusing screen) Here is a test you can do now: take a magnifying sheet from a $ store, aim a camcorder towards a well lit wall and take a light reading. Then, keep the focusing screen at its focal length in front of the camcorder and take another reading. That is how much light I loose. Let me put it this way. The sun does not burn your skin, but if you use a lens, you might smell the brightness dif (lol) As for those shots, I used the avail light. Frame, focus, shoot. Glad you like it. I'll be banned soon for the long posts here, so enjoy them while I am still with you.

January 28th, 2005, 08:47 PM	#129
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Damn, I am back. Did you miss me? THX for the congrats. Beattie and ............ I would not call a circular movement an "oscilation" Oscilation (as I understand it) is a movement between two points. That is not it. Is circular. Glad you like it. More footage today. Stay tuned.

January 28th, 2005, 11:29 PM	#130
Justin Burris Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 54	Dan, So the stuff on your website was shot with a Beattie screen?

January 28th, 2005, 11:36 PM	#131
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	yes

January 28th, 2005, 11:53 PM	#132
Kyle Edwards Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI, NY Posts: 274	http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums...underwater.wmv Just making it right click save as.

January 29th, 2005, 09:48 AM	#134
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	of course.... try it!

January 29th, 2005, 10:45 PM	#135
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Some updates: ALL new footage is relevant. (most clips are 1M only) (Premiere has artifacts @flip so I did not invert the image). Some clips are 5sec. short HiRez and RELEVANT on many issues. Relevant tests about GG brightness and vigneting (hence size left avail for a pic/video) Same site: www.dandiaconu.com Thanks for stopping by. PS. Leave a comment if you like what you see or if it helps you in any way....