Adapter for 37 mm Sony HDR-HC1

Ben Winter · October 7th, 2005, 12:39 PM

Just an aesthetics design note Quyen,

Try to put that adjustment screw somewhere else on the perimeter of the adapter. GL1/2 users can't access the screwhole when it's at the top because the microphone hangs over the lens there, and I'm sure there are other model cameras that do the same thing.

And also, add some extra wire onto the battery pack. I'd love to take some weight off the adapter and put the batteries on my tripod or palm strap. Regardless of the design of these adapters, anything involving plastic or malleable metal will bend and there is shake, however minimal. Putting the batteries somewhere else would help balance out the camera.

Kevin Red · October 7th, 2005, 03:41 PM

Yes thats similar to mine, but even when I zoom in as far as it goes (without getting blurry) the edges are still noticeably darker. Is there any way to fix this? Also, does the footage still look like HD to you? To me it looks like SD which kind of makes the extra money I spent on the HC1 worthless if I want to use this adapter.

Quyen Le · October 7th, 2005, 03:52 PM

Kevin, Fredrik

Base on your discussions, I guess my adapter doesn't work good with HC1 then? Can you 2 send me a full frame capture so I can suggest of any necessary change to make the design works better for you? Thanks.

Quyen

Fredrik-Larsson · October 7th, 2005, 04:32 PM

Queyen, I'll fix some samples tomorrow. I will do a set where I remove the lense during recording so the quality without the adapter is also visible.

I kind of expected to loose some degree of quality so I am quite happy with the look. I am mainly working with DV-workflow so I haven't taken a look at the HDV-pictures yet. I figure that it must be the groundglass that takes down the quality a bit. Actually it can be the lense and macroadapter to. From what I've found out the HD-lenses is of a lot higher quality than SD-lenses since they are covering like 3 times more area than a normal SD-lense does on the same.

Fredrik-Larsson · October 8th, 2005, 05:49 AM

I have sent Queyen a sample to look at. Maybe he has some opinion on how to fix it.

Since I am no expert on this I am wondering if the vinegretting is caused by the distance to the GG? So for cameras with smaller optics, like the HC1, they would have to be closer to the GG? I have a couple of macro-filters that I can try to put on to see how they work out.

Kevin Red · October 8th, 2005, 08:21 AM

It might be that, since we have to zoom in so much, the grain of the GG is getting very large and ruining what would be a sharper picture. If the vignetting can be fixed then we wouldn't have to zoom in all the way, this might fix the picture quality issue.
Ill try to get you a full frame capture sometime today.

Quyen Le · October 8th, 2005, 08:42 AM

Fredrik

Got your footage. I doubt very much from the beginning that HC1 will work good with Letus35 without vignetting because of small front glass element. Zoom in could get you some good footage but we don't call it works if you don't get full 24x36 frame without vignetting. An extension tube about 50-55mm will improve vignetting. Please try and let me know if it works for you, thanks.

Quyen

Fredrik-Larsson · October 8th, 2005, 09:39 AM

Sent this to Quyen by e-mail:
I had a tube that I tried a few minits ago. I figure that using a tube the macro-lense should be closer to the camera and not to the GG? What happens then is that it gets even smaller. I also felt that image turned worse since I need to zoom in more. I did test by just adding a tube and kept the macro where it was but that wasn't good either.

I almost got the complete frame when I used 3 37mm macro filters (+4, +2, +1) attached. If I had another +2 or something it would probably be perfect. With them on I only need to zoom about 25 %.

Can it be that my camera need to be closer to the GG? I mean this is optimized for 58 mm. Cameras with bigger lensewidth might need that PVC tube and smaller cameras need to be closer? Or is my mind just playing tricks on me? I tried to get the macro on the adapter closer but of course there is a stop that keeps it from sliding in closer.

I will take some pictures when I play with the tube and macros again. It's better to check them out to have "scientific" material to refer to.

BTW! What macro is in there?

Kevin Red · October 10th, 2005, 03:55 PM

Have you had any progress, Fredrik?

Fredrik-Larsson · October 10th, 2005, 11:17 PM

Sorry, it's gonna be some busy days ahead. Hopefully I will find some time on saturday.

Kevin Red · October 11th, 2005, 05:13 PM

I did a little shoot last night with better lighting.
I zoomed in as far as could while still being able to get a focus.
I don't see any real vignetting, however the lighting is uneven and may compensate for it.
The image looks sharper than my previous tests.
Conclusion: Adequate lighting is a must for the Letus35+HC1 combination.
But I'd still like to see the vignetting reduced when not zoomed in all the way.

How do the macro filters work? Is it the increased distance from the GG or do they even out the light?

Leo Mandy · October 11th, 2005, 06:46 PM

The HC1 does suffer from low light challenges so maybe that is it. If anyone wants a +7 +10 macro lens 43mm , I am selling mine, so let me know.

Bill Porter · October 11th, 2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jos Svendsen

Thanks for that last post. I was wondering if the unsupported design was ridgid enough, and you implies that it is not.

This means that the 250 USD extra for the Micro35 is probably a good investment, as this device has rails.

De bedste fra den anden side af sundet

It's a mistake to say that all unsupported designs aren't rigid enough. I have a small plastic camcorder with a 37mm thread and another prosumer camcorder with a 72mm thread, and the big camera is very solid while the little one is pretty flexible, when comparing the same 35mm adapter on both cams.

Tony Tibbetts · October 11th, 2005, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jos Svendsen

This means that the 250 USD extra for the Micro35 is probably a good investment, as this device has rails.

Hmm..the Letus35 is $300...add $250 you get $550. You wont be getting any rail support for the Micro35 at that price, only the adapter.

Adapter and rails together sell for $850

I can tell you this much, you get no ghosting with the Letus35. The same can't be said for the Micro35

Jos Svendsen · October 12th, 2005, 02:02 AM

Hi Tony.

You are right - just checked.

And just made a quick search on BH. Rods can be found around 100 $, but my issue is that in HDV things just have to be more stable. And why use 350 $ on a product that is not as mechanical stable as can be? Of course you can use some time tinkering with it in order to get it more ridgid, but I prefer that designed into the product from the start.

This is early days, and hopefully the Letus35 gets a rod-system.

I am absolutely positive about the project, and I sincerly hope that the product will be a sucess. I am just more inclined to version 1.5.

October 7th, 2005, 12:39 PM	#31
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	Just an aesthetics design note Quyen, Try to put that adjustment screw somewhere else on the perimeter of the adapter. GL1/2 users can't access the screwhole when it's at the top because the microphone hangs over the lens there, and I'm sure there are other model cameras that do the same thing. And also, add some extra wire onto the battery pack. I'd love to take some weight off the adapter and put the batteries on my tripod or palm strap. Regardless of the design of these adapters, anything involving plastic or malleable metal will bend and there is shake, however minimal. Putting the batteries somewhere else would help balance out the camera. __________________ BenWinter.com

October 7th, 2005, 03:41 PM	#32
Kevin Red Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 103	Yes thats similar to mine, but even when I zoom in as far as it goes (without getting blurry) the edges are still noticeably darker. Is there any way to fix this? Also, does the footage still look like HD to you? To me it looks like SD which kind of makes the extra money I spent on the HC1 worthless if I want to use this adapter. __________________ AMD Athalon 2800 (2.08ghz) running Windows XP sp2 1GB of RAM Vegas 6.0 NLE 300+ GB hard drive space running SATA RAID 0 With an NVIDEA Geforce FX 5600XT http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?searchid=149990

October 7th, 2005, 03:52 PM	#33
Quyen Le Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 356	Kevin, Fredrik Base on your discussions, I guess my adapter doesn't work good with HC1 then? Can you 2 send me a full frame capture so I can suggest of any necessary change to make the design works better for you? Thanks. Quyen __________________ Affordable Adapter http://www.adapterplace.com

October 7th, 2005, 04:32 PM	#34
Fredrik-Larsson Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Malmö, Sweden Posts: 395	Queyen, I'll fix some samples tomorrow. I will do a set where I remove the lense during recording so the quality without the adapter is also visible. I kind of expected to loose some degree of quality so I am quite happy with the look. I am mainly working with DV-workflow so I haven't taken a look at the HDV-pictures yet. I figure that it must be the groundglass that takes down the quality a bit. Actually it can be the lense and macroadapter to. From what I've found out the HD-lenses is of a lot higher quality than SD-lenses since they are covering like 3 times more area than a normal SD-lense does on the same. __________________ The Russian Captain (upcoming feature) http://trc-movie.blogspot.com/ My movies http://www.larssonfilm.com/

October 8th, 2005, 05:49 AM	#35
Fredrik-Larsson Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Malmö, Sweden Posts: 395	I have sent Queyen a sample to look at. Maybe he has some opinion on how to fix it. Since I am no expert on this I am wondering if the vinegretting is caused by the distance to the GG? So for cameras with smaller optics, like the HC1, they would have to be closer to the GG? I have a couple of macro-filters that I can try to put on to see how they work out. __________________ The Russian Captain (upcoming feature) http://trc-movie.blogspot.com/ My movies http://www.larssonfilm.com/

October 8th, 2005, 08:21 AM	#36
Kevin Red Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 103	It might be that, since we have to zoom in so much, the grain of the GG is getting very large and ruining what would be a sharper picture. If the vignetting can be fixed then we wouldn't have to zoom in all the way, this might fix the picture quality issue. Ill try to get you a full frame capture sometime today. __________________ AMD Athalon 2800 (2.08ghz) running Windows XP sp2 1GB of RAM Vegas 6.0 NLE 300+ GB hard drive space running SATA RAID 0 With an NVIDEA Geforce FX 5600XT http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?searchid=149990

October 8th, 2005, 08:42 AM	#37
Quyen Le Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 356	Fredrik Got your footage. I doubt very much from the beginning that HC1 will work good with Letus35 without vignetting because of small front glass element. Zoom in could get you some good footage but we don't call it works if you don't get full 24x36 frame without vignetting. An extension tube about 50-55mm will improve vignetting. Please try and let me know if it works for you, thanks. Quyen __________________ Affordable Adapter http://www.adapterplace.com

October 8th, 2005, 09:39 AM	#38
Fredrik-Larsson Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Malmö, Sweden Posts: 395	Sent this to Quyen by e-mail: I had a tube that I tried a few minits ago. I figure that using a tube the macro-lense should be closer to the camera and not to the GG? What happens then is that it gets even smaller. I also felt that image turned worse since I need to zoom in more. I did test by just adding a tube and kept the macro where it was but that wasn't good either. I almost got the complete frame when I used 3 37mm macro filters (+4, +2, +1) attached. If I had another +2 or something it would probably be perfect. With them on I only need to zoom about 25 %. Can it be that my camera need to be closer to the GG? I mean this is optimized for 58 mm. Cameras with bigger lensewidth might need that PVC tube and smaller cameras need to be closer? Or is my mind just playing tricks on me? I tried to get the macro on the adapter closer but of course there is a stop that keeps it from sliding in closer. I will take some pictures when I play with the tube and macros again. It's better to check them out to have "scientific" material to refer to. BTW! What macro is in there? __________________ The Russian Captain (upcoming feature) http://trc-movie.blogspot.com/ My movies http://www.larssonfilm.com/

October 10th, 2005, 03:55 PM	#39
Kevin Red Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 103	Have you had any progress, Fredrik? __________________ AMD Athalon 2800 (2.08ghz) running Windows XP sp2 1GB of RAM Vegas 6.0 NLE 300+ GB hard drive space running SATA RAID 0 With an NVIDEA Geforce FX 5600XT http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?searchid=149990

October 10th, 2005, 11:17 PM	#40
Fredrik-Larsson Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Malmö, Sweden Posts: 395	Sorry, it's gonna be some busy days ahead. Hopefully I will find some time on saturday. __________________ The Russian Captain (upcoming feature) http://trc-movie.blogspot.com/ My movies http://www.larssonfilm.com/

October 11th, 2005, 05:13 PM	#41
Kevin Red Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 103	I did a little shoot last night with better lighting. I zoomed in as far as could while still being able to get a focus. I don't see any real vignetting, however the lighting is uneven and may compensate for it. The image looks sharper than my previous tests. Conclusion: Adequate lighting is a must for the Letus35+HC1 combination. But I'd still like to see the vignetting reduced when not zoomed in all the way. How do the macro filters work? Is it the increased distance from the GG or do they even out the light? __________________ AMD Athalon 2800 (2.08ghz) running Windows XP sp2 1GB of RAM Vegas 6.0 NLE 300+ GB hard drive space running SATA RAID 0 With an NVIDEA Geforce FX 5600XT http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?searchid=149990

October 11th, 2005, 06:46 PM	#42
Leo Mandy Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 749	The HC1 does suffer from low light challenges so maybe that is it. If anyone wants a +7 +10 macro lens 43mm , I am selling mine, so let me know.

October 12th, 2005, 02:02 AM	#45
Jos Svendsen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 221	Hi Tony. You are right - just checked. And just made a quick search on BH. Rods can be found around 100 $, but my issue is that in HDV things just have to be more stable. And why use 350 $ on a product that is not as mechanical stable as can be? Of course you can use some time tinkering with it in order to get it more ridgid, but I prefer that designed into the product from the start. This is early days, and hopefully the Letus35 gets a rod-system. I am absolutely positive about the project, and I sincerly hope that the product will be a sucess. I am just more inclined to version 1.5.