Reversed image upside down? at DVinfo.net

Shannon Rawls · March 6th, 2005, 11:51 PM

Will the MIcro35 have the 'upsidedown viewfinder/lcd' problem like others are having with their 35mm lens projects?

- Shannon W. Rawls

Brett A. Noe · March 8th, 2005, 09:21 AM

I wouldn't call it a problem, but yes, it will. It takes some quite complicated prisims or mirrors to flip the image. There are some easy fixes for this.

Brett

Brian Valente · March 8th, 2005, 09:28 AM

...and those fixes would be...?!

Larry McKee · March 9th, 2005, 09:18 AM

"...and those fixes would be...?!"

In production, an LCD monitor with a "flip picture" switch, or simply turn your field monitor upside down. In post, just do a DVE to right the image.

Michal Spimr · March 9th, 2005, 11:00 PM

I guess Brian was reffering to cheap flip picture fix such as the magnet you put between fliipout DVX LCD and the body. I've seen it somewhere. So technically you shouldn't even need external monitor to do that.

Brian Valente · March 11th, 2005, 09:47 AM

I think I will probably just use the flip field monitor approach, since the idea of putting a big magnet next to my camera (and my tape) just kinda spooks me a little! :-)

Luis Caffesse · March 11th, 2005, 09:59 AM

"I wouldn't call it a problem"

I would still consider this a huge drawback.
Using a flipped LCD screen on set might be a short term workaround on set. But, I don't know about most of you, but I generally shoot with an onset monitor (13 - 17"). I don't really like the idea of having to keep my monitor upside down all day. But, regardless, I suppose the LCD is 'good enough' to get me by during the actual shoot.

But then you are still left with inverted footage you have to deal with in post. I don't like the idea of having to manipulate ALL my raw footage to re-invert it. Seems like a lot of hassle.

I realize this is just my opinion, and others out there are definitely willing to deal with it. But I for one think the inverted image problem is definitely a bigger deal than most, and not something to just be glossed over.

Brian Valente · March 11th, 2005, 10:02 AM

I agree- though I know the simplest solution is to buy the much more expensive mini35. The way I look at this project is "what are the reasonable tradeoffs to make so we can get 35mm into the hands of those who don't have money to burn"

For me the anamorphic problem dwarfs the upside down viewfinder. :-0

James Hurd · March 11th, 2005, 10:35 AM

For an entry level device (with the output quality of a professional device of course...), and for the price, I (and many others) believe the image errecting issue isn't a big deal at all. I think it comes down to what you're looking for in the end (nice DOF). Unless you're deploying or distributing raw un-touched footage to your audience/customer, flipping it in post isn't a problem.

For what its worth, we've got a prism/mirror prototype in the works. It won't hit the streets until the first quarter of 2006. It's low priority right now until we get the current adapters shipping. We're going to take the comments and suggestions of the current device and release a 'pro' version which will probably be 3x the price of the micro35. So getting your feet wet with the current device will certainly help make the 'pro' version the best out there.

james
www.micro35.com

Luis Caffesse · March 11th, 2005, 10:55 AM

"For an entry level device (with the output quality of a professional device of course...), and for the price, I (and many others) believe the image errecting issue isn't a big deal at all"

I agree James. Didn't want anyone to think that I was trying to spread Chris's biggest pet peeve (FUD).
:)

I was merely saying in general (not taking price into account) the inverted image is definitely an issue for me. It is one thing that makes me stop and think, how much am I willing to do/pay in order to achieve 35 Dof. This is obviously just a personal choice, and purely a matter of opinion, not a slam on any devices that are being offered.

As things advance, and drop in price, I hope we won't have to be forced to ask ourselves these sorts of questions in the future.

Joel Aaron · March 11th, 2005, 05:29 PM

<<<--
Originally posted by Luis Caffesse :
how much am I willing to do/pay in order to achieve 35 Dof.
-->>>

For me the final image quality is what matters most at any given price point. If a 180 solution degraded the picture or caused a couple stops of light loss I'd not be paying extra for it. Heck I probably wouldn't pay less for it. :-)

And that's the problem...every solution seems to add glass and/or mirrors. If there was a lossless electronic solution then that would be really cool.

I figure I only have to invert the stuff once but I'll be looking at the image quality over and over again for the rest of my life (if I shot something worthwhile).

James Hurd · March 11th, 2005, 06:36 PM

By the way, DOF is only one cool aspect of the adapter. You also get to use all those nice wide angle lenses!

Thanks for the input guys!

james
www.micro35.com

Joel Aaron · March 11th, 2005, 07:15 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by James Hurd : By the way, DOF is only one cool aspect of the adapter. You also get to use all those nice wide angle lenses!
-->>>

So a 20mm really looks like a 20mm? That's very cool.

Have you had a chance to compare lens brands? I think I saw someone once compare some Nikon lenses to Cooke on a Mini35 and they seemed to indicate similar enough results to not warrant the price difference.

Also, have you played with Intenscreens or similar for the GG? I'm interested to see how HD works too. What do you think you'll change for the pro version? How about a tradeup option for early adopters?

James Hurd · March 11th, 2005, 07:27 PM

The quality is high enough that different lens qualities will certainly make a difference. At least on the 'micro35'...

I just got a 12-24mm for my canon slr and works GREAT on my dvx/micro35 setup. S U P E R W I D E !

I don't want to get too far off topic here (I may start a new thread on it) but.. I can't really tell you a price on the PRO version yet because most of it will be based on what YOU (the people) ask for based on your experience with the micro35. I'll tell you that I'm trying to stay below $2500. Prisms and all... I'll probably release a Mattebox and Follow Focus as well.

Existing users of the micro35 will get a nice discount as well. ;)

james
www.micro35.com

Joel Aaron · March 11th, 2005, 07:42 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by James Hurd :
I'll tell you that I'm trying to stay below $2500. Prisms and all... I'll probably release a Mattebox and Follow Focus as well.
-->>>

To me the next step is HD. There's a new HD Panasonic 24p rumored for $6-$10k. I'm going to be looking at that really closely. I've seen some good things from the Sony HDV also.

What about wireless follow focus? Seems like standard R/C stuff with heavy duty servos might work. Have you thought about that?

(Ok, make a new topic now...) ;-)

March 6th, 2005, 11:51 PM	#1
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	Upsidedown Viewfinder/LCD? Will the MIcro35 have the 'upsidedown viewfinder/lcd' problem like others are having with their 35mm lens projects? - Shannon W. Rawls

March 9th, 2005, 09:18 AM	#4
Larry McKee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 32	"...and those fixes would be...?!" In production, an LCD monitor with a "flip picture" switch, or simply turn your field monitor upside down. In post, just do a DVE to right the image. __________________ www.lunaticfringepictures.com

March 11th, 2005, 09:59 AM	#7
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"I wouldn't call it a problem" I would still consider this a huge drawback. Using a flipped LCD screen on set might be a short term workaround on set. But, I don't know about most of you, but I generally shoot with an onset monitor (13 - 17"). I don't really like the idea of having to keep my monitor upside down all day. But, regardless, I suppose the LCD is 'good enough' to get me by during the actual shoot. But then you are still left with inverted footage you have to deal with in post. I don't like the idea of having to manipulate ALL my raw footage to re-invert it. Seems like a lot of hassle. I realize this is just my opinion, and others out there are definitely willing to deal with it. But I for one think the inverted image problem is definitely a bigger deal than most, and not something to just be glossed over. __________________ Luis Caffesse Pitch Productions Austin, Texas

March 11th, 2005, 10:55 AM	#10
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"For an entry level device (with the output quality of a professional device of course...), and for the price, I (and many others) believe the image errecting issue isn't a big deal at all" I agree James. Didn't want anyone to think that I was trying to spread Chris's biggest pet peeve (FUD). :) I was merely saying in general (not taking price into account) the inverted image is definitely an issue for me. It is one thing that makes me stop and think, how much am I willing to do/pay in order to achieve 35 Dof. This is obviously just a personal choice, and purely a matter of opinion, not a slam on any devices that are being offered. As things advance, and drop in price, I hope we won't have to be forced to ask ourselves these sorts of questions in the future. __________________ Luis Caffesse Pitch Productions Austin, Texas

March 8th, 2005, 09:21 AM	#2
Brett A. Noe New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 20	I wouldn't call it a problem, but yes, it will. It takes some quite complicated prisims or mirrors to flip the image. There are some easy fixes for this. Brett

March 8th, 2005, 09:28 AM	#3
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	...and those fixes would be...?!

March 9th, 2005, 11:00 PM	#5
Michal Spimr New Boot Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: LV Posts: 23	I guess Brian was reffering to cheap flip picture fix such as the magnet you put between fliipout DVX LCD and the body. I've seen it somewhere. So technically you shouldn't even need external monitor to do that.

March 11th, 2005, 09:47 AM	#6
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	I think I will probably just use the flip field monitor approach, since the idea of putting a big magnet next to my camera (and my tape) just kinda spooks me a little! :-)

March 11th, 2005, 10:02 AM	#8
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	I agree- though I know the simplest solution is to buy the much more expensive mini35. The way I look at this project is "what are the reasonable tradeoffs to make so we can get 35mm into the hands of those who don't have money to burn" For me the anamorphic problem dwarfs the upside down viewfinder. :-0

March 11th, 2005, 10:35 AM	#9
James Hurd Micro35 Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 221	For an entry level device (with the output quality of a professional device of course...), and for the price, I (and many others) believe the image errecting issue isn't a big deal at all. I think it comes down to what you're looking for in the end (nice DOF). Unless you're deploying or distributing raw un-touched footage to your audience/customer, flipping it in post isn't a problem. For what its worth, we've got a prism/mirror prototype in the works. It won't hit the streets until the first quarter of 2006. It's low priority right now until we get the current adapters shipping. We're going to take the comments and suggestions of the current device and release a 'pro' version which will probably be 3x the price of the micro35. So getting your feet wet with the current device will certainly help make the 'pro' version the best out there. james www.micro35.com

March 11th, 2005, 05:29 PM	#11
Joel Aaron Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA Posts: 300	<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : how much am I willing to do/pay in order to achieve 35 Dof. -->>> For me the final image quality is what matters most at any given price point. If a 180 solution degraded the picture or caused a couple stops of light loss I'd not be paying extra for it. Heck I probably wouldn't pay less for it. :-) And that's the problem...every solution seems to add glass and/or mirrors. If there was a lossless electronic solution then that would be really cool. I figure I only have to invert the stuff once but I'll be looking at the image quality over and over again for the rest of my life (if I shot something worthwhile).

March 11th, 2005, 06:36 PM	#12
James Hurd Micro35 Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 221	By the way, DOF is only one cool aspect of the adapter. You also get to use all those nice wide angle lenses! Thanks for the input guys! james www.micro35.com

March 11th, 2005, 07:15 PM	#13
Joel Aaron Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA Posts: 300	<<<-- Originally posted by James Hurd : By the way, DOF is only one cool aspect of the adapter. You also get to use all those nice wide angle lenses! -->>> So a 20mm really looks like a 20mm? That's very cool. Have you had a chance to compare lens brands? I think I saw someone once compare some Nikon lenses to Cooke on a Mini35 and they seemed to indicate similar enough results to not warrant the price difference. Also, have you played with Intenscreens or similar for the GG? I'm interested to see how HD works too. What do you think you'll change for the pro version? How about a tradeup option for early adopters?

March 11th, 2005, 07:27 PM	#14
James Hurd Micro35 Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 221	The quality is high enough that different lens qualities will certainly make a difference. At least on the 'micro35'... I just got a 12-24mm for my canon slr and works GREAT on my dvx/micro35 setup. S U P E R W I D E ! I don't want to get too far off topic here (I may start a new thread on it) but.. I can't really tell you a price on the PRO version yet because most of it will be based on what YOU (the people) ask for based on your experience with the micro35. I'll tell you that I'm trying to stay below $2500. Prisms and all... I'll probably release a Mattebox and Follow Focus as well. Existing users of the micro35 will get a nice discount as well. ;) james www.micro35.com

March 11th, 2005, 07:42 PM	#15
Joel Aaron Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA Posts: 300	<<<-- Originally posted by James Hurd : I'll tell you that I'm trying to stay below $2500. Prisms and all... I'll probably release a Mattebox and Follow Focus as well. -->>> To me the next step is HD. There's a new HD Panasonic 24p rumored for $6-$10k. I'm going to be looking at that really closely. I've seen some good things from the Sony HDV also. What about wireless follow focus? Seems like standard R/C stuff with heavy duty servos might work. Have you thought about that? (Ok, make a new topic now...) ;-)