Finally we did it...

Oscar Spierenburg · May 23rd, 2005, 05:25 AM

Were did you put the condenser, because I don't have color aberration with probably the same one.
I put the condenser between the adapter lens (your Takumar) and the GG (close to the GG)
I really don't have any visible side effects that way captured on a +/- 1080 x 720 image.

Daves Spi · May 23rd, 2005, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier

Were did you put the condenser, because I don't have color aberration with probably the same one.
I put the condenser between the adapter lens (your Takumar) and the GG (close to the GG)
I really don't have any visible side effects that way captured on a +/- 1080 x 720 image.

If you take a look at my previous photos with this condenser, you will find just some small abberation... In this tests I did everything in hurry, because I have to change system for 10 test shots, which means 20 times everything decompose and compose again. Condenser was placed in some position fixed by adhesive tape :( Not optimal, but enough to me...
but
I have primary lens -> focusing screen -> condenser -> DV camera... Because Nikon focusing screen has already one condenser built in. Looks like this (|, one side is GG. So I'm using next one between GG and DV. And I get zero vignetting on full 36mm. Better than with beattie :/

Anyway... Nikon GG with condenser is not the way I will follow... not this time...

Dan Diaconu · May 23rd, 2005, 08:35 AM

I agree that even a $10 screen (when you find it for this price) can produce a good result. As for the difference, keep experimenting.(and stop using that condenser or whatever you use now. You do not need it!)

Now: how do you see using a GG (of any kind) vs a focusing screen?
What is the diff? is it any brighter?

Daves Spi · May 23rd, 2005, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

Now: how do you see using a GG (of any kind) vs a focusing screen?
What is the diff? is it any brighter?

Damn, you know it is !!! lol , With beattie you can make shoots even in night :) Ok, not really but it has very bright image, with other focusing screens you are out of job.

I just wanted to show resolution test of Nikon Focusing screen vs Maxwell beattie, because people are thinking the beattie has low resolution. So, maybe it has, but its the same as Nikon focusing screen (without any fresnel) - as far as I have tested.

So, we are going to use maxwell (which we are already using for past month - although standard focusing screens are not bad). I wanted to show, that not just the beattie or maxwell is the only one way, but even with standard focusing screen you can take full 36x24 without vignetting... And maybe if I've been knew this before I bought maxwell, maybe I stayed with it... Who knows...

Passed...

As we tested, moving maxwell is much better then static. The only problem is, you have to find some mechanism to oscilate it. This is problem, which lots of people can not solve by themselves at home, I guess. With 0.5mm oscilating movement you have to be very precise. And... we did not find the way to build it home, yet. We have two types of oscilating mechanism right now. One is based on three shafts, second is based on sliders from caddy CD drive. In our minds we have third type, which is based on rotating ring inside of three rollers. But... What we do, is just wasting our time and money, while moving very slowly ahead. We know its the hard way we have to pass, but hope for someones kick :)

Dan Diaconu · May 23rd, 2005, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daves Spi

With beattie you can make shoots even in night :) Ok, not really but it has very bright image,

Not really? Let me doubt it...
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0159
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0164

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daves Spi

As we tested, moving maxwell is much better then static. The only problem is, you have to find some mechanism to oscilate it

Oh yeah... THAT! seems to be the "key" to a bright image...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daves Spi

But... What we do, is just wasting our time and money, while moving very slowly ahead, but hope for someones kick

Kick:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album06/kick.wmv

Daves Spi · May 23rd, 2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

Not really? Let me doubt it...
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0159
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05/IMGA0164

Dan, not tested yet, do not matter to me now, but wow... I tried a lot (shots at 8pm with the rain) but I did not risk the night shot... Must test it... (lol)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

Kick:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album06/kick.wmv

Thank you so much... Good kick for us. We have to think about it. You are the god, as my friend said. Thank you again for the video... but... I do not like video in video anymore (rotf)... very nice

Dan Diaconu · May 23rd, 2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daves Spi

You are the god

Do not say that! Seriously! Do not say "perfect" either. Look what hapened to Titanic! "Un-sinckable... perfect, a marvel of ...(human stupid pride)" and all that...... Good motivation (motivator), is OK.

Leo Mandy · May 23rd, 2005, 05:17 PM

Dan,

With the focusing screen, I am severly impressed with the low light capabilities! It is amazing the stuff you are pulling out. What is the size of the screen that most people use - and how much of it is the camera actually seeing?

Also, cheap focusing screens under $10?!?!? I would have never thunk it - got a source?

Dan Diaconu · May 23rd, 2005, 08:52 PM

Leo, it has been there for 6 months (so far) and so is the rest of the stuff. All you have to do is look and think! That's all. I do not have a "source" at that price. Goggle!

Daves Spi · May 24th, 2005, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

Good motivation (motivator), is OK.

yeah... you are ! We never thought about plastic gears... ;-)

Daves Spi · May 24th, 2005, 04:35 AM

Oscar, Dan : This condenser Im using together with Nikon FS : http://test.datriware.com/con.jpg, Maxwell Im using as is (primary lens, maxwell, DVcamera). Once again - Maxwell is the way I will go...

Dan Diaconu · May 24th, 2005, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daves Spi

Maxwell is the way I will go...

Amin......
(and "loose" that "rock" .... so you can run even faster........)

Shawn Murphy · May 24th, 2005, 09:40 AM

Dan, et al,

(stop me if this question is off topic or a distraction here)

What's your opinion of the static design, or should I say, specifically the image quality of the G35 stuff? I actually met with the G35 designer/owner the other day and the images I saw live through a DVX100 "appeared" to be VERY impressive, and matched what he's posted so far. Just wondering, thanks.

~Shawn

Dan Diaconu · May 24th, 2005, 10:33 AM

No, is not off topic.
I have a few tests (pics in hi rz) on my site about ststic and in motion GG, brightness comparison and so on. I honestly did not need them and I did not post them there for me. Right? I also made some sugestions for those who want to achieve the best static (see recent wax developments/results thread)
I saw all the pics/clips posted on G35 and micro 35. (I have quite a few myself)
I do however, what I think is best (IMHO) for a film print out.
BTW. My "route" choosing the moving Fresnel was not an accident or one of many options. It was the only logical option (IMO). That other solutions work well, that is true, but there are some limitations (one way or another) that one must be aware of and live with. Well.... I do not like limitations....
What more can I add?

Shawn Murphy · May 24th, 2005, 10:47 AM

Thanks Dan,

What explicitly do you feel are the limitations or tradeoffs with the static design? (or, please point me to the post where perhaps you already articulated this).

As I don't know specifically what design/technology/approach is inside the G35, I'd like to be able to measure or quantify the static design concerns you speak of to see if they apply here. I'm making an assumption that with the limitations you're referring to, you feel they are inherent and applicable to all static designs?

Thanks!

May 24th, 2005, 04:35 AM	#41
Daves Spi Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Czech republic, Prague Posts: 159	Oscar, Dan : This condenser Im using together with Nikon FS : http://test.datriware.com/con.jpg, Maxwell Im using as is (primary lens, maxwell, DVcamera). Once again - Maxwell is the way I will go... __________________ Daves At the beginning there was an idea, then the ambition came and the idea became to be a dream... The Satisfied Dream => http://film.datriware.com

May 23rd, 2005, 05:25 AM	#31
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Were did you put the condenser, because I don't have color aberration with probably the same one. I put the condenser between the adapter lens (your Takumar) and the GG (close to the GG) I really don't have any visible side effects that way captured on a +/- 1080 x 720 image.

May 23rd, 2005, 08:35 AM	#33
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	I agree that even a $10 screen (when you find it for this price) can produce a good result. As for the difference, keep experimenting.(and stop using that condenser or whatever you use now. You do not need it!) Now: how do you see using a GG (of any kind) vs a focusing screen? What is the diff? is it any brighter?

May 23rd, 2005, 05:17 PM	#38
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	Dan, With the focusing screen, I am severly impressed with the low light capabilities! It is amazing the stuff you are pulling out. What is the size of the screen that most people use - and how much of it is the camera actually seeing? Also, cheap focusing screens under $10?!?!? I would have never thunk it - got a source?

May 23rd, 2005, 08:52 PM	#39
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Leo, it has been there for 6 months (so far) and so is the rest of the stuff. All you have to do is look and think! That's all. I do not have a "source" at that price. Goggle!

May 24th, 2005, 09:40 AM	#43
Shawn Murphy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Seattle WA USA Posts: 125	Dan, et al, (stop me if this question is off topic or a distraction here) What's your opinion of the static design, or should I say, specifically the image quality of the G35 stuff? I actually met with the G35 designer/owner the other day and the images I saw live through a DVX100 "appeared" to be VERY impressive, and matched what he's posted so far. Just wondering, thanks. ~Shawn

May 24th, 2005, 10:33 AM	#44
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	No, is not off topic. I have a few tests (pics in hi rz) on my site about ststic and in motion GG, brightness comparison and so on. I honestly did not need them and I did not post them there for me. Right? I also made some sugestions for those who want to achieve the best static (see recent wax developments/results thread) I saw all the pics/clips posted on G35 and micro 35. (I have quite a few myself) I do however, what I think is best (IMHO) for a film print out. BTW. My "route" choosing the moving Fresnel was not an accident or one of many options. It was the only logical option (IMO). That other solutions work well, that is true, but there are some limitations (one way or another) that one must be aware of and live with. Well.... I do not like limitations.... What more can I add?

May 24th, 2005, 10:47 AM	#45
Shawn Murphy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Seattle WA USA Posts: 125	Thanks Dan, What explicitly do you feel are the limitations or tradeoffs with the static design? (or, please point me to the post where perhaps you already articulated this). As I don't know specifically what design/technology/approach is inside the G35, I'd like to be able to measure or quantify the static design concerns you speak of to see if they apply here. I'm making an assumption that with the limitations you're referring to, you feel they are inherent and applicable to all static designs? Thanks!