my ground glass at DVinfo.net

Justin Neri · February 9th, 2005, 08:18 AM

so for my first attempt at making ground glass i used a uv filter and 1000 AlumOxide.
ive been grinding this thing for hours and hours.
what a task. im just wondering-
what is so bad about having a static adapter. am i really gonna see the grain? if i keep grinding can i get it like the viewfinder in a 35mm camera.(i dont see any grain in that)

i cant test this GG because im waiting for a camera i bought on ebay. i think im getting ripped off. the seller has not sent it yet and isnt responding to my emails.
i got a canon l2. its old but it has nice lenses. im wondering if its gonna be like the xl1 and its troubles on focusing on the ground glass.

any input?

Jonathon Wilson · February 9th, 2005, 08:33 AM

Everyone has different opinions on this. In my opinion, the problem with a static ground glass is that the grain is fixed. Still captures will look great, but the second you see some moving footage, you'll notice that there's a 'texture' to the image that is not moving. It's very distracting. Once you move the ground glass, this all goes away, and it seems to also increase resolution, at least from a perception standpoint.

However, I think the best way to get into this project is to build a static adapter. They're the easiest, and they work -- plus you'll work through lots of other general problems which apply to any adapter: (inverted image. How to mount all this stuff in the right place. How to affix it to your camera. How to put the whole thing into something that can actually be moved around, etc.).

Once you build the first one, it will be a thrill, and you'll soon realize that its "not good enough" and you'll want to make another one, likely with a moving ground glass.

I'm just starting my third adapter. 1: static. 2: barebones cd-spinner, 3: elliptical/eccentric posts

If you haven't seen it yet, check out the movie going around about 'the ultimate adapter' -- totally captures the spirit of this whole thing. Good luck!

Justin Neri · February 9th, 2005, 08:41 AM

yes ive seen that. excellent work. this stupid adapter stuff makes people crazy. why cant they just sell one that we can all aford so we can move on with our lives and start filming instead of looking for the perfect build process.

im willing to put out 500 bucks for a working adapter. i dont know if its even worth messing with the static adapter. i dont want to waste my time.

do the spinning cd adapters produce decent results. im not a pro film maker. i just want to make some shorts. less time building more time filming is what my modo has to be.

Frank Ladner · February 10th, 2005, 01:28 PM

Justin,
I know where you're coming from. I've been working on various 35mm adapters since all this started w/ Agus' spinning cd version. Started with the grinding glass, then moved to a spinning CD, then tried to vibrate the glass, then got into microcrystalline wax (the best static solution, in my opinion, but difficult to get right), and now I'm waiting on one of the guys to donate an oscillating adapter to me. <wink, wink> LOL!

You might be interested in the Micro35 by James Hurd. (micro35.com) He is offering a book, but also I believe he is going to sell both a parts/kit version, and a pre-assembled version. I think they are each below $500.

Leo Mandy · February 10th, 2005, 08:53 PM

Justin,

My only real advice on the subject is - if you are waiting for the micro35 or the agus35 instead of shooting something - don't wait. Get out and shoot something with whatever you've got. The DOF isn't going to make a better film, but practicing your craft, will.

I really don't mean to lecture. That's the last I will say on the subject.

Dan Diaconu · February 10th, 2005, 09:55 PM

Here here. Well said.
however, the only other dif that an adapter can do (other than DOF and so on....) is :
impose some restrictions of your "free shooting style";
by not having everyting sharp (as in normal video), you are forced to think: focus from what to what, when... that leads to composition (framing) camera movement and before you know it, you have a different perspective on the subject;-)<
I wish the day would have 30h......... so I can work more.......

Leo Mandy · February 10th, 2005, 10:37 PM

That is very true. You really start to 'become' a film-maker for the 'art' at that point because of the details and what is really important in the shot. With mini-dv, you just point and shoot - which is wonderful because it lets you get on with film-making without all the fuss. But I think film-making on a DV scale, leads to film-making for the pure art form. That is why I am here. I have done the DV film-making route - love it and still do it, but want to improve my craft.

Dan Diaconu · February 10th, 2005, 11:27 PM

Without "all the fuss" you should either have a hell of a story to tell, or shoot something exotic, or document some work/event or anything else worth watching. See what's on TV and see how much YOU stay on one channel (and why)
Figure the value of soap shows.... oh well. Enough!
Keep on experimenting. Is FUN and you LEARN and get BETTER by doing IT.

Filip Kovcin · February 11th, 2005, 06:45 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Mandy Leo : Justin,

My only real advice on the subject is - Get out and shoot something with whatever you've got. The DOF isn't going to make a better film, but practicing your craft, will. -->>>

true!!!!

sorry for "commercial" association, but - in another words:

just do it!

filip

February 9th, 2005, 08:18 AM	#1
Justin Neri New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13	my ground glass so for my first attempt at making ground glass i used a uv filter and 1000 AlumOxide. ive been grinding this thing for hours and hours. what a task. im just wondering- what is so bad about having a static adapter. am i really gonna see the grain? if i keep grinding can i get it like the viewfinder in a 35mm camera.(i dont see any grain in that) i cant test this GG because im waiting for a camera i bought on ebay. i think im getting ripped off. the seller has not sent it yet and isnt responding to my emails. i got a canon l2. its old but it has nice lenses. im wondering if its gonna be like the xl1 and its troubles on focusing on the ground glass. any input? __________________ http://www.justinneri.com 1st rule of fight club...don't talk about fight club. 2nd rule of fight club...don't talk about the Matrix.

February 9th, 2005, 08:41 AM	#3
Justin Neri New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13	yes ive seen that. excellent work. this stupid adapter stuff makes people crazy. why cant they just sell one that we can all aford so we can move on with our lives and start filming instead of looking for the perfect build process. im willing to put out 500 bucks for a working adapter. i dont know if its even worth messing with the static adapter. i dont want to waste my time. do the spinning cd adapters produce decent results. im not a pro film maker. i just want to make some shorts. less time building more time filming is what my modo has to be. __________________ http://www.justinneri.com 1st rule of fight club...don't talk about fight club. 2nd rule of fight club...don't talk about the Matrix.

February 11th, 2005, 06:45 PM	#9
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	<<<-- Originally posted by Mandy Leo : Justin, My only real advice on the subject is - Get out and shoot something with whatever you've got. The DOF isn't going to make a better film, but practicing your craft, will. -->>> true!!!! sorry for "commercial" association, but - in another words: just do it! filip __________________ in kino (sic!) veritas

February 9th, 2005, 08:33 AM	#2
Jonathon Wilson Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 182	Everyone has different opinions on this. In my opinion, the problem with a static ground glass is that the grain is fixed. Still captures will look great, but the second you see some moving footage, you'll notice that there's a 'texture' to the image that is not moving. It's very distracting. Once you move the ground glass, this all goes away, and it seems to also increase resolution, at least from a perception standpoint. However, I think the best way to get into this project is to build a static adapter. They're the easiest, and they work -- plus you'll work through lots of other general problems which apply to any adapter: (inverted image. How to mount all this stuff in the right place. How to affix it to your camera. How to put the whole thing into something that can actually be moved around, etc.). Once you build the first one, it will be a thrill, and you'll soon realize that its "not good enough" and you'll want to make another one, likely with a moving ground glass. I'm just starting my third adapter. 1: static. 2: barebones cd-spinner, 3: elliptical/eccentric posts If you haven't seen it yet, check out the movie going around about 'the ultimate adapter' -- totally captures the spirit of this whole thing. Good luck!

February 10th, 2005, 01:28 PM	#4
Frank Ladner Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Poplarville, MS Posts: 453	Justin, I know where you're coming from. I've been working on various 35mm adapters since all this started w/ Agus' spinning cd version. Started with the grinding glass, then moved to a spinning CD, then tried to vibrate the glass, then got into microcrystalline wax (the best static solution, in my opinion, but difficult to get right), and now I'm waiting on one of the guys to donate an oscillating adapter to me. <wink, wink> LOL! You might be interested in the Micro35 by James Hurd. (micro35.com) He is offering a book, but also I believe he is going to sell both a parts/kit version, and a pre-assembled version. I think they are each below $500.

February 10th, 2005, 08:53 PM	#5
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Justin, My only real advice on the subject is - if you are waiting for the micro35 or the agus35 instead of shooting something - don't wait. Get out and shoot something with whatever you've got. The DOF isn't going to make a better film, but practicing your craft, will. I really don't mean to lecture. That's the last I will say on the subject.

February 10th, 2005, 09:55 PM	#6
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Here here. Well said. however, the only other dif that an adapter can do (other than DOF and so on....) is : impose some restrictions of your "free shooting style"; by not having everyting sharp (as in normal video), you are forced to think: focus from what to what, when... that leads to composition (framing) camera movement and before you know it, you have a different perspective on the subject;-)< I wish the day would have 30h......... so I can work more.......

February 10th, 2005, 10:37 PM	#7
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	That is very true. You really start to 'become' a film-maker for the 'art' at that point because of the details and what is really important in the shot. With mini-dv, you just point and shoot - which is wonderful because it lets you get on with film-making without all the fuss. But I think film-making on a DV scale, leads to film-making for the pure art form. That is why I am here. I have done the DV film-making route - love it and still do it, but want to improve my craft.

February 10th, 2005, 11:27 PM	#8
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Without "all the fuss" you should either have a hell of a story to tell, or shoot something exotic, or document some work/event or anything else worth watching. See what's on TV and see how much YOU stay on one channel (and why) Figure the value of soap shows.... oh well. Enough! Keep on experimenting. Is FUN and you LEARN and get BETTER by doing IT.