Static Idea

Oscar Spierenburg · May 21st, 2005, 05:15 PM

Dan, you got me interested in the wax GG, so I re-read the whole micro wax thread. I made some promising tests today, but I'll post something on that thread.

Another thing, the first post of this thread by Craig, I don't really understand the idea with a filter smearing the grain...

Dan Diaconu · May 21st, 2005, 07:32 PM

I think it was a "way" to soften the grain/texture (if any) itself, but that would also soften the picture as well, so.... one might as well achieve the same by soft focusing the lens of the camcorder (just as well) I did it and is ok (as long as the aperture does not change (close). Than, the GG ends up whithin the DOF of the camcorder's lens showing a sharp pic (as well as the grain) It works, but is subject to one's exigence.... and expectations.....
To conclude: a softening filter close to the GG will soften the pic and the grain to one's level of acceptance. Whatever it would look like, it will show when pan and tilt.

Best of all: TRY whatever croses your mind. Whether you find something or no, is not relevant, but you LEARN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and next time when you want to try something else, the next test will have a bit of FOUNDATION (previous test) and so on.......

Craig Bellaire · May 21st, 2005, 07:50 PM

I've been thinking of this for a while now... get a clear filter and blow smoke from a cigarette at it until it fogs? And project your image on it. What’s your thoughts Dan??

Dan Diaconu · May 21st, 2005, 09:55 PM

In all honesty, I had another "smoke" related thought in my mind, (never pursued) during the "evaluation" time last year before I got to "work" on the current solution:
Two sandwiched filters (spaced by scotch tape) and sealed. Using a syringe and needle, pump some smoke between the two filters. The smoke will not settle in a spot only (I think) and create an even screen. Never tested the idea. It may or may not work, but if it does, is grain free for sure. It may not be "thick" enough though..... I don't know.....
As for the other one (smoking a filter) all I can say is TRY IT! Is a good idea but to get the whole surface even smoked (and thick enough)….might be difficult. All this “experiments might be worth aimed to use gravity (somehow) and the weight of the substance, for is even and the success will be dependent upon how even a process is carried out. Just a thought.
I think I might re shoot POC screen. For many might be a blessing. The pics I have on my site concern brightness comparison (mainly) and I did not care much for the grain size.

Do the following: open this link:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album15/IMGA0571?full=1
and then in a sepparate window this one:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album15/IMGA0571?full=1
position them so when they open, the images match. This is the diff between POC and Beattie in Hi Rez. For a STATIC screen, POC would be the king. I did not see (and I do not have the time to do it now) but if one pan/tilts the camera if the "soft" areas will show the grain. I was not interested (as my mind is not on a static screen) but definitely worth the price vs hours of hobby. But then again, this is my perspective. If you want to accomplish on your own, you must work for it.

Bill Porter · May 22nd, 2005, 04:21 AM

Which angle and which material POC is that, Dan?

Of the 50mm round ones there are three materials:

LSD® UV Transmitting Diffuser - 90% at 190nm
LSD® High Termperature Diffuser - 500º C Stable
LSD® High Power Diffuser

and angles of .5, 1, and 5 degrees.

Or did you not use a round one?

Cheers,
BP

Dan Diaconu · May 22nd, 2005, 08:10 AM

No, I did not use a round one. Is 50 deg dif. but do not get stuck in figures. All of them will do just fine. They have the same "grain size" and (unless you want to persue it as hobby and find the best out of the best....) any of them will do the job just fine.

Bill Porter · May 26th, 2005, 08:42 AM

Did you mean 60 deg? or 5 deg? I don't see a 50 on the site.

Which material did you use? I see a few different ones. Was it a LSD® Light Shaping Diffuser, Diffuser Sheet, Acrylic, Polycarbonate, Polyester, Acrylic-UVT, Glass...?

Thanks, hate to waste money going down the wrong path.

Dan Diaconu · May 26th, 2005, 09:20 AM

Part no: LSD 80 PC10-2
diffuser angle is hand written and the closest I think is 80 deg.(I may have took it for a 50 or 60)
2"X2"

I did not test another one, so there may be other ones better, who knows?
Choose what YOU want (not what I have tested) and keep the glory/blame.

Bill Porter · May 26th, 2005, 09:22 AM

You rule! Thank you very much. Saving even a little money really helps some of us. I am going to upgrade out of my grainy GG into this.

Thanks again, including all your research and work,
BP

Dan Diaconu · May 26th, 2005, 09:44 AM

OK, you are welcome.

Craig Bellaire · May 26th, 2005, 11:55 AM

what is POC? Thanks

Dan Diaconu · May 26th, 2005, 11:59 AM

http://www.poc.com/

Bill Porter · May 26th, 2005, 01:47 PM

double post

Steve Brady · May 27th, 2005, 01:38 AM

Dan,

Sorry to keep harping on about the LSD - my only excuse is that I'm in England, so it's a little tougher for me to deal with them directly (a fairly lame excuse, I know).

Did you discuss what you wanted with anybody from POC, or did you just pick an item and order it?

If I understand correctly, the LSD converts incoming rays of light into diverging beams, and the angle specifies how wide the beam becomes. It seems to me that the optimum angle would be such that a ray arriving at the top left corner (say) of the image portion of the screen should diverge just enough so that the beam covers the bottom right corner of the image-forming portion of the camcorder lens (this will, of course, vary according to the distances between the screen and lenses). If the angle is wider than that, then some of the light is being wasted, making the image dimmer than it needs to be (it also occurs to me that, since we're shooting rectangular images which are wider than they are tall, a screen with a horizontal diffusion angle greater than the vertical diffusion angle - like POC's Directional Display Screen - might also be more suitable). Is any of this relevant, or am I talking rubbish?

Dan Diaconu · May 27th, 2005, 04:08 AM

Yes Steve, I told them what needs to happen to let "them" sort out the best for the job. Now, what you say makes perfect sense (different H to V diffusion angles would be a good match for 1.33 or 1.78, etc) but (I think) a light in BG soft would be distorted from being seen as a circle and the "shining" of objects would be different (from "normal" ) if those angles would not be equal. I know I am splitting the thread in 1000 (and so you did!), but.... old habits never die...
(excellent logic and observation though)

May 21st, 2005, 07:50 PM	#18
Craig Bellaire Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 422	One Last Idea. I've been thinking of this for a while now... get a clear filter and blow smoke from a cigarette at it until it fogs? And project your image on it. What’s your thoughts Dan?? __________________ Craig Bellaire www.VerticalVideoSolutions.com

May 26th, 2005, 09:20 AM	#23
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Part no: LSD 80 PC10-2 diffuser angle is hand written and the closest I think is 80 deg.(I may have took it for a 50 or 60) 2"X2" I did not test another one, so there may be other ones better, who knows? Choose what YOU want (not what I have tested) and keep the glory/blame. Last edited by Dan Diaconu; May 26th, 2005 at 09:43 AM.

May 26th, 2005, 11:55 AM	#26
Craig Bellaire Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 422	Just wondering what is POC? Thanks __________________ Craig Bellaire www.VerticalVideoSolutions.com

May 26th, 2005, 01:47 PM	#28
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	double post Last edited by Bill Porter; May 27th, 2005 at 02:58 PM.

May 21st, 2005, 05:15 PM	#16
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	Dan, you got me interested in the wax GG, so I re-read the whole micro wax thread. I made some promising tests today, but I'll post something on that thread. Another thing, the first post of this thread by Craig, I don't really understand the idea with a filter smearing the grain...

May 21st, 2005, 07:32 PM	#17
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	I think it was a "way" to soften the grain/texture (if any) itself, but that would also soften the picture as well, so.... one might as well achieve the same by soft focusing the lens of the camcorder (just as well) I did it and is ok (as long as the aperture does not change (close). Than, the GG ends up whithin the DOF of the camcorder's lens showing a sharp pic (as well as the grain) It works, but is subject to one's exigence.... and expectations..... To conclude: a softening filter close to the GG will soften the pic and the grain to one's level of acceptance. Whatever it would look like, it will show when pan and tilt. Best of all: TRY whatever croses your mind. Whether you find something or no, is not relevant, but you LEARN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and next time when you want to try something else, the next test will have a bit of FOUNDATION (previous test) and so on.......

May 21st, 2005, 09:55 PM	#19
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	In all honesty, I had another "smoke" related thought in my mind, (never pursued) during the "evaluation" time last year before I got to "work" on the current solution: Two sandwiched filters (spaced by scotch tape) and sealed. Using a syringe and needle, pump some smoke between the two filters. The smoke will not settle in a spot only (I think) and create an even screen. Never tested the idea. It may or may not work, but if it does, is grain free for sure. It may not be "thick" enough though..... I don't know..... As for the other one (smoking a filter) all I can say is TRY IT! Is a good idea but to get the whole surface even smoked (and thick enough)….might be difficult. All this “experiments might be worth aimed to use gravity (somehow) and the weight of the substance, for is even and the success will be dependent upon how even a process is carried out. Just a thought. I think I might re shoot POC screen. For many might be a blessing. The pics I have on my site concern brightness comparison (mainly) and I did not care much for the grain size. Do the following: open this link: http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album15/IMGA0571?full=1 and then in a sepparate window this one: http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album15/IMGA0571?full=1 position them so when they open, the images match. This is the diff between POC and Beattie in Hi Rez. For a STATIC screen, POC would be the king. I did not see (and I do not have the time to do it now) but if one pan/tilts the camera if the "soft" areas will show the grain. I was not interested (as my mind is not on a static screen) but definitely worth the price vs hours of hobby. But then again, this is my perspective. If you want to accomplish on your own, you must work for it.

May 22nd, 2005, 04:21 AM	#20
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Which angle and which material POC is that, Dan? Of the 50mm round ones there are three materials: LSD® UV Transmitting Diffuser - 90% at 190nm LSD® High Termperature Diffuser - 500º C Stable LSD® High Power Diffuser and angles of .5, 1, and 5 degrees. Or did you not use a round one? Cheers, BP

May 22nd, 2005, 08:10 AM	#21
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	No, I did not use a round one. Is 50 deg dif. but do not get stuck in figures. All of them will do just fine. They have the same "grain size" and (unless you want to persue it as hobby and find the best out of the best....) any of them will do the job just fine.

May 26th, 2005, 08:42 AM	#22
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Did you mean 60 deg? or 5 deg? I don't see a 50 on the site. Which material did you use? I see a few different ones. Was it a LSD® Light Shaping Diffuser, Diffuser Sheet, Acrylic, Polycarbonate, Polyester, Acrylic-UVT, Glass...? Thanks, hate to waste money going down the wrong path.

May 26th, 2005, 09:22 AM	#24
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	You rule! Thank you very much. Saving even a little money really helps some of us. I am going to upgrade out of my grainy GG into this. Thanks again, including all your research and work, BP

May 26th, 2005, 09:44 AM	#25
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	OK, you are welcome.

May 26th, 2005, 11:59 AM	#27
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	http://www.poc.com/

May 27th, 2005, 01:38 AM	#29
Steve Brady Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Rainham, Kent, UK Posts: 69	Dan, Sorry to keep harping on about the LSD - my only excuse is that I'm in England, so it's a little tougher for me to deal with them directly (a fairly lame excuse, I know). Did you discuss what you wanted with anybody from POC, or did you just pick an item and order it? If I understand correctly, the LSD converts incoming rays of light into diverging beams, and the angle specifies how wide the beam becomes. It seems to me that the optimum angle would be such that a ray arriving at the top left corner (say) of the image portion of the screen should diverge just enough so that the beam covers the bottom right corner of the image-forming portion of the camcorder lens (this will, of course, vary according to the distances between the screen and lenses). If the angle is wider than that, then some of the light is being wasted, making the image dimmer than it needs to be (it also occurs to me that, since we're shooting rectangular images which are wider than they are tall, a screen with a horizontal diffusion angle greater than the vertical diffusion angle - like POC's Directional Display Screen - might also be more suitable). Is any of this relevant, or am I talking rubbish?

May 27th, 2005, 04:08 AM	#30
Dan Diaconu Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 804	Yes Steve, I told them what needs to happen to let "them" sort out the best for the job. Now, what you say makes perfect sense (different H to V diffusion angles would be a good match for 1.33 or 1.78, etc) but (I think) a light in BG soft would be distorted from being seen as a circle and the "shining" of objects would be different (from "normal" ) if those angles would not be equal. I know I am splitting the thread in 1000 (and so you did!), but.... old habits never die... (excellent logic and observation though)