LetUs35 Review with DVX-100AE and DCR-PC120E

Michael Maier · September 19th, 2005, 11:57 AM

Thanks. But as I said, what could you replace besides the macro? The GG doesn't really affects sharpness as it does grain. It's just a projection screen. The camera doesn't see through it. So it doesn't affect sharpness. You can maybe improve on the building quality of the adapter. But besides the macro, I don't see how you can improve anything else optically.
How much will the HD version cost by the way? At least approximately?

Quyen Le · September 19th, 2005, 12:25 PM

I don't think you know the complexity of buiding the unit. It involves many factors than just good optical glass. I am still collecting data from beta testers, it's too soon to tell what need to be replaced. I am sure not just the macro lens. The price would be in the neighborhood of $400-$500. Still affordable. We will post the final price when it's ready to be shipped, thanks.

Quyen

Michael Maier · September 19th, 2005, 04:57 PM

Well, the principle of all these adapters is pretty simple really. If you get a SLR camera and use a camcorder to focus in the SLR's viewfinder, you will get the results of the shallow DOF. There's really no complexity in suck adapter. Specially the el cheapo ones with the upside down image. The P+S is more complex because it has a relay lens and flips the image back to the upright position. But these low budget units are basically a tube with a lens mount in one end, a GG in the middle and a macro lens in the other end. All you need to do is to calculate the right distances between them. So, there isn't really any complexity. I still can't see how you could have a HD adapter , rather than having a better built and or better quality one. You can maybe get the GG to move faster(since there seems to be a problem with this issue and your adapter) to eliminate grain and pattern, and you can get a better quality macro. But optically, there isn't really much more you can do. I think the reason the Letus35 seems to look so soft, may be a low quality macro. It’s a pity really. Because it seems to have great potential.

Wayne Kinney · September 19th, 2005, 05:08 PM

Another important element in the adpater is the condensor lens. In my opinion the adapter is useless without it. I know Quyen has done ALOT of research on all this. I tried building Quyens design a while back when he made a tutorial of his design, mine did not work. Quyens design is extremely elegant, and he has done alot of work to put it together into a working version. Believe me, its not just a simple matter of putting it together. Yes the concept is very simple on all these adapters, but getting it to useable quality, especially for HD, thats the challenge. It is possible though, and thats where the complexity, and research comes in.

Just my 2 cents,
Wayne.

Marius Luessi · September 19th, 2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

I still can't see how you could have a HD adapter...

Hello Michael,
you seem a little bitter about all these adapters and stuff, as you seem to be a little argumentative on this subject?

Quyen has made an affordable adapter. He is taking suggestions of persons who have one of his units, and is trying to improve on the design. It's that simple.
Not everyone will like this, or any other product. That's fine.

Cheers though, and happy filming,
Marius

Michael Maier · September 19th, 2005, 05:14 PM

You either need a macro or a condenser right? I don't think you need both.

Wayne Kinney · September 19th, 2005, 05:21 PM

Michael,
The Macro and condensor lenses play 2 different roles in these adapters, a commen misunderstanding. The condensor lens is used to get rid of vignetting. The macro lens is to help the camcorder focus in the small image area of 36x24mm. Both mine and Quyens designs use condensor lenses.

Wayne.

Michael Maier · September 19th, 2005, 05:23 PM

A condensor and a macro(achromat)?

Wayne Kinney · September 19th, 2005, 05:29 PM

Michael.
Yes thats right. Quyen's adapter uses both. They play 2 different roles in the adpater. Its not until you start researching focal lenghs and diameters for condensor lenses, best GG grit size, correct distances, what strength macro to use, best mechanism to move the GG, building that mechanism effectively and strongly as not to produce to much noise, but be strong....etc

So many variables of each element, finding the correct combination, and making it compatible with a wide variaty of camcorders, is the complexity.

Thanks,
Wayne.

Michael Maier · September 19th, 2005, 05:41 PM

So macro and condensor? No wonder it lowers the sharpness so much. In this case one shouldn't go for anything else but the best macro and condenser possible. The Mini35 doesn't use a condenser and macro, does it?
Anyway, I was talking about having a HD version, which would require anything else than optical improvement, which is basically a better macro and condensor. It would probably be the same adapter with just better optics. It's not like a whole new R&D and a new adapter needs to be developed. That was my point.

Wayne Kinney · September 19th, 2005, 06:00 PM

Yes point taken, not too much more effort to create HD from a standard SD unit. But i think its also the GG and the moving mechanism that comes into play here. A HD unit is going to be less forgiving to any kind of artifact an adapter produces, so any grain movement not noticable on an SD cam maybe apparent in HD? In terms of sharpness, yes its mainly the macro and condensor, but I think more research into ground glass grit size and its effect on sharpness and if it has any effect needs to be done, probably what Quyen is doing right now.

Thanks,
Wayne.

September 19th, 2005, 12:25 PM	#17
Quyen Le Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 356	I don't think you know the complexity of buiding the unit. It involves many factors than just good optical glass. I am still collecting data from beta testers, it's too soon to tell what need to be replaced. I am sure not just the macro lens. The price would be in the neighborhood of $400-$500. Still affordable. We will post the final price when it's ready to be shipped, thanks. Quyen __________________ Affordable Adapter http://www.adapterplace.com

September 19th, 2005, 11:57 AM	#16
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Thanks. But as I said, what could you replace besides the macro? The GG doesn't really affects sharpness as it does grain. It's just a projection screen. The camera doesn't see through it. So it doesn't affect sharpness. You can maybe improve on the building quality of the adapter. But besides the macro, I don't see how you can improve anything else optically. How much will the HD version cost by the way? At least approximately?

September 19th, 2005, 04:57 PM	#18
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Well, the principle of all these adapters is pretty simple really. If you get a SLR camera and use a camcorder to focus in the SLR's viewfinder, you will get the results of the shallow DOF. There's really no complexity in suck adapter. Specially the el cheapo ones with the upside down image. The P+S is more complex because it has a relay lens and flips the image back to the upright position. But these low budget units are basically a tube with a lens mount in one end, a GG in the middle and a macro lens in the other end. All you need to do is to calculate the right distances between them. So, there isn't really any complexity. I still can't see how you could have a HD adapter , rather than having a better built and or better quality one. You can maybe get the GG to move faster(since there seems to be a problem with this issue and your adapter) to eliminate grain and pattern, and you can get a better quality macro. But optically, there isn't really much more you can do. I think the reason the Letus35 seems to look so soft, may be a low quality macro. It’s a pity really. Because it seems to have great potential.

September 19th, 2005, 05:08 PM	#19
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Another important element in the adpater is the condensor lens. In my opinion the adapter is useless without it. I know Quyen has done ALOT of research on all this. I tried building Quyens design a while back when he made a tutorial of his design, mine did not work. Quyens design is extremely elegant, and he has done alot of work to put it together into a working version. Believe me, its not just a simple matter of putting it together. Yes the concept is very simple on all these adapters, but getting it to useable quality, especially for HD, thats the challenge. It is possible though, and thats where the complexity, and research comes in. Just my 2 cents, Wayne.

September 19th, 2005, 05:14 PM	#21
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	You either need a macro or a condenser right? I don't think you need both.

September 19th, 2005, 05:21 PM	#22
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Michael, The Macro and condensor lenses play 2 different roles in these adapters, a commen misunderstanding. The condensor lens is used to get rid of vignetting. The macro lens is to help the camcorder focus in the small image area of 36x24mm. Both mine and Quyens designs use condensor lenses. Wayne.

September 19th, 2005, 05:23 PM	#23
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	A condensor and a macro(achromat)?

September 19th, 2005, 05:29 PM	#24
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Michael. Yes thats right. Quyen's adapter uses both. They play 2 different roles in the adpater. Its not until you start researching focal lenghs and diameters for condensor lenses, best GG grit size, correct distances, what strength macro to use, best mechanism to move the GG, building that mechanism effectively and strongly as not to produce to much noise, but be strong....etc So many variables of each element, finding the correct combination, and making it compatible with a wide variaty of camcorders, is the complexity. Thanks, Wayne.

September 19th, 2005, 05:41 PM	#25
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	So macro and condensor? No wonder it lowers the sharpness so much. In this case one shouldn't go for anything else but the best macro and condenser possible. The Mini35 doesn't use a condenser and macro, does it? Anyway, I was talking about having a HD version, which would require anything else than optical improvement, which is basically a better macro and condensor. It would probably be the same adapter with just better optics. It's not like a whole new R&D and a new adapter needs to be developed. That was my point.

September 19th, 2005, 06:00 PM	#26
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Yes point taken, not too much more effort to create HD from a standard SD unit. But i think its also the GG and the moving mechanism that comes into play here. A HD unit is going to be less forgiving to any kind of artifact an adapter produces, so any grain movement not noticable on an SD cam maybe apparent in HD? In terms of sharpness, yes its mainly the macro and condensor, but I think more research into ground glass grit size and its effect on sharpness and if it has any effect needs to be done, probably what Quyen is doing right now. Thanks, Wayne.