Guskers35 and inverted rail system...thanks guys!

Dennis Wood · January 16th, 2006, 11:56 PM

Thanks Leo. I've redone the GG and reposted the clip (same name). This one's much better.

Wayne Kinney · January 17th, 2006, 03:40 AM

Dennis,
The footage looks good, very sharp and you have satisfied my questioning of the diffussion. You got to be feeling pretty good about your efforts, eh?

Dennis Wood · January 17th, 2006, 08:34 AM

I guess so... I haven't used any other 35mm adapters so I don't have anything to compare to. Your advice on the diffusion factor was very helpful as I think now I know what (and what not) to look for. I'm looking forward to a more comprehensive test soon. We have about 30cm of new snow outside so things are looking pretty scenic for a few shots.

Dennis Wood · January 17th, 2006, 09:01 PM

Ok, here's the res charts. The EIA1956 is a laser print, but is fine for comparison. I did the GS400, and then the "G35" (Guskers35). For my first test, I set up the G35 (50mm F/1.4 lens) with correct framing as per the LCD display. F/4.0 was selected by the camera. I then removed the adapter, set the tripod to the correct height and adjusted framing with the GS400 zoom. The camera chose F/5.6! I was a bit surprised as I expected more light loss with the 50mm on.

My lighting was from behind and to the left and this shows. I should redo these really as the cam was not the same distance from the chart in both tests (it was in the first test where I saw the F4.0 to F5.6 change but I neglected to manually WB)....either way, they were framed the same.

Frame grabs are from VLC, nothing is touched except to add the labels. How do they look?

GS400
Guskers35

Dennis Wood · January 18th, 2006, 02:39 PM

Link
Alternate

DOF sample footage.

Wayne Kinney · January 18th, 2006, 04:03 PM

Dennis,
I watched the footage, VERY SHARP,

However, im still not happy with the level of diffussion your GG is giving. On the pull focus from the mans face to the trees, the trees should be far more blurred then that.

But with everything there is a compromise. Your footage is very sharp, but if it was diffused more to give shallower DOF, then it may not be as sharp. But, then again, since the whole purpose the the adapter is to give shallow DOF, which property should be compromised?

Dennis Wood · January 18th, 2006, 04:51 PM

I'm pretty happy with that look Wayne...but I'm also the guy that turns up the treble, cranks contrast, and likes the sharp look.

I think the answer is a few GGs for different situations. I'm beginning (slowly) to realize there's no free lunch on the GG side. Vibrate a Beattie, there's a little chromatic aberation..but it's bright. Controlling the orbits to .2-.5 mm is beyond most DIYers. Put in a POC and you have awesome diffusion but 4 f/stops light loss.

My next test will be to try a GG with a much coarser finish to compare sharpness as it relates to light loss and I'll post those up. If I can go coarser, and still limit light loss to 1.6 f/stops, then I'm in like Flynn. Thanks for your ongoing feedback Wayne. Knowing how much work that you've done yourself on these things, your opinion has extra weight in my books.

Wayne Kinney · January 18th, 2006, 04:54 PM

Thanks Dennis,
I think you have made amazing progress. Your footage is very clean indeed. Only step now is to experiement with different types of GG to see what you come up with. keep at it!!!

Dennis Wood · January 19th, 2006, 09:41 PM

Ok, here is an EIA1956 and frame grab with a new coarse GG. Amazingly, the GS400 (no adapter) reference chart looks almost exactly the same. So I'm getting better resolution, and still 1.6 stops light loss with the 50mm f/1.4. Of course, Wayne, you knew this all along..ha!

I'll have to do another outside shot to compare.

No adapter GS400 EIA1956
Coarse GG EIA1956
DOF screen grab

Alain Bellon · January 19th, 2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

Ok, here is an EIA1956 and frame grab with a new coarse GG. Amazingly, the GS400 (no adapter) reference chart looks almost exactly the same. So I'm getting better resolution, and still 1.6 stops light loss with the 50mm f/1.4. Of course, Wayne, you knew this all along..ha!

I'll have to do another outside shot to compare.

No adapter GS400 EIA1956
Coarse GG EIA1956
DOF screen grab

Hmmm with all due respect, but I think this is a hoax. :)

Wayne Kinney · January 20th, 2006, 05:28 AM

Dennis,
Are you sure the res charts are not just the same image here? Flicking from 1 to the other thay are EXACTLY the same.

The third image proves enough for me though, the adapter is certainly there!

Dennis Wood · January 20th, 2006, 07:18 AM

Alain, I'm not sure "due respect" and "hoax" should be used in the same sentence :-) Hoax suggests an attempt to deliberately deceive...and that's certainly not the case here.

Having said that, it is possible that I mistakenly uploaded the same chart twice, and I'll confirm this tonight by doing another screen grab from the footage. I'm thinking it's unlikely though as one had text overlay, and the new one didn't. I did see slight softening in the adapter chart...but only when zooming the jpegs to 150%. I also kept voice audio with the footage so I could keep track of the clips.

For my own reference (as few seem to be posting these charts), what would be a typical, if any, resolution loss with a spinning GG? Intuitively I would think that there sould be significant loss, but even with the less diffused disc, there's not much.

Alain Bellon · January 20th, 2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

Alain, I'm not sure "due respect" and "hoax" should be used in the same sentence :-) Hoax suggests an attempt to deliberately deceive...and that's certainly not the case here.

Having said that, it is possible that I mistakenly uploaded the same chart twice, and I'll confirm this tonight by doing another screen grab from the footage. I'm thinking it's unlikely though as one had text overlay, and the new one didn't. I did see slight softening in the adapter chart...but only when zooming the jpegs to 150%. I also kept voice audio with the footage so I could keep track of the clips.

For my own reference (as few seem to be posting these charts), what would be a typical, if any, resolution loss with a spinning GG? Intuitively I would think that there sould be significant loss, but even with the less diffused disc, there's not much.

Dennis,

I apologize for my suggestion, it was probably too strong to say, even with the smiley attached at the end.

Now, let me explain my, perhaps out of place, suspicion. The charts uploaded have a text overlay which indicates that the possible error is not in the upload, but only possible at the editing phase.

If you download the chart images and overlay them in an image application using the "difference" overlay mode you will see that the image is the same. Not just similar, but the same image with different text. There is no softening or anything, it is just the same image. So maybe you confused which was which. Also, I thought the chart was just too perfectly framed, but that is not an impossibility, just unusual.

Then the charts have a 720x480 resolution while the rest of the imagery is at 853x480 (if I remember correctly). So I thought there was something "odd" going on with the resolution. Of course this doesn't mean anything but was an added oddity to the already strangeness of the same image chart issue.

So this is why I was suspicious of it.

It is probably a mistake and I will stand corrected.

Again, I apologize for my comment, but it was meant to be taken lightly. :)

Dennis Wood · January 20th, 2006, 01:03 PM

No offense taken at all Alain, no worries. Actually I'm grateful you picked this up...I am after all looking for critiques, and the online communities certainly keep us all honest. We all can appreciate how written text denies us all the subtleties of verbal communication.

You're likely right and I confused the images in my capture folder. I use VLC (for quick grabs) which captures with some pretty obscure names. I'll confirm this tonight. GS400 output is not detected properly by VLC, hence the 720 vs 853. All of the res charts should be at 4:3 (720x480).

I know, smileys don't quite do it. We need embedded jpegs of our own facial expressions :-)

Wayne Kinney · January 20th, 2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

I know, smileys don't quite do it. We need embedded jpegs of our own facial expressions :-)

That just made me smile!!!! Can just imagine it!!!

January 17th, 2006, 03:40 AM	#47
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Dennis, The footage looks good, very sharp and you have satisfied my questioning of the diffussion. You got to be feeling pretty good about your efforts, eh? __________________ Thanks, Wayne.

January 18th, 2006, 02:39 PM	#50
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	Now I'm happy. Link Alternate DOF sample footage.

January 18th, 2006, 04:03 PM	#51
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Dennis, I watched the footage, VERY SHARP, However, im still not happy with the level of diffussion your GG is giving. On the pull focus from the mans face to the trees, the trees should be far more blurred then that. But with everything there is a compromise. Your footage is very sharp, but if it was diffused more to give shallower DOF, then it may not be as sharp. But, then again, since the whole purpose the the adapter is to give shallow DOF, which property should be compromised? __________________ Thanks, Wayne.

January 18th, 2006, 04:54 PM	#53
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Thanks Dennis, I think you have made amazing progress. Your footage is very clean indeed. Only step now is to experiement with different types of GG to see what you come up with. keep at it!!! __________________ Thanks, Wayne.

January 20th, 2006, 05:28 AM	#56
Wayne Kinney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Posts: 938	Dennis, Are you sure the res charts are not just the same image here? Flicking from 1 to the other thay are EXACTLY the same. The third image proves enough for me though, the adapter is certainly there! __________________ Thanks, Wayne.

January 16th, 2006, 11:56 PM	#46
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	Thanks Leo. I've redone the GG and reposted the clip (same name). This one's much better.

January 17th, 2006, 08:34 AM	#48
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	I guess so... I haven't used any other 35mm adapters so I don't have anything to compare to. Your advice on the diffusion factor was very helpful as I think now I know what (and what not) to look for. I'm looking forward to a more comprehensive test soon. We have about 30cm of new snow outside so things are looking pretty scenic for a few shots.

January 17th, 2006, 09:01 PM	#49
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	Ok, here's the res charts. The EIA1956 is a laser print, but is fine for comparison. I did the GS400, and then the "G35" (Guskers35). For my first test, I set up the G35 (50mm F/1.4 lens) with correct framing as per the LCD display. F/4.0 was selected by the camera. I then removed the adapter, set the tripod to the correct height and adjusted framing with the GS400 zoom. The camera chose F/5.6! I was a bit surprised as I expected more light loss with the 50mm on. My lighting was from behind and to the left and this shows. I should redo these really as the cam was not the same distance from the chart in both tests (it was in the first test where I saw the F4.0 to F5.6 change but I neglected to manually WB)....either way, they were framed the same. Frame grabs are from VLC, nothing is touched except to add the labels. How do they look? GS400 Guskers35

January 18th, 2006, 04:51 PM	#52
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	I'm pretty happy with that look Wayne...but I'm also the guy that turns up the treble, cranks contrast, and likes the sharp look. I think the answer is a few GGs for different situations. I'm beginning (slowly) to realize there's no free lunch on the GG side. Vibrate a Beattie, there's a little chromatic aberation..but it's bright. Controlling the orbits to .2-.5 mm is beyond most DIYers. Put in a POC and you have awesome diffusion but 4 f/stops light loss. My next test will be to try a GG with a much coarser finish to compare sharpness as it relates to light loss and I'll post those up. If I can go coarser, and still limit light loss to 1.6 f/stops, then I'm in like Flynn. Thanks for your ongoing feedback Wayne. Knowing how much work that you've done yourself on these things, your opinion has extra weight in my books.

January 19th, 2006, 09:41 PM	#54
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	Ok, here is an EIA1956 and frame grab with a new coarse GG. Amazingly, the GS400 (no adapter) reference chart looks almost exactly the same. So I'm getting better resolution, and still 1.6 stops light loss with the 50mm f/1.4. Of course, Wayne, you knew this all along..ha! I'll have to do another outside shot to compare. No adapter GS400 EIA1956 Coarse GG EIA1956 DOF screen grab

January 20th, 2006, 07:18 AM	#57
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	Alain, I'm not sure "due respect" and "hoax" should be used in the same sentence :-) Hoax suggests an attempt to deliberately deceive...and that's certainly not the case here. Having said that, it is possible that I mistakenly uploaded the same chart twice, and I'll confirm this tonight by doing another screen grab from the footage. I'm thinking it's unlikely though as one had text overlay, and the new one didn't. I did see slight softening in the adapter chart...but only when zooming the jpegs to 150%. I also kept voice audio with the footage so I could keep track of the clips. For my own reference (as few seem to be posting these charts), what would be a typical, if any, resolution loss with a spinning GG? Intuitively I would think that there sould be significant loss, but even with the less diffused disc, there's not much.

January 20th, 2006, 01:03 PM	#59
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	No offense taken at all Alain, no worries. Actually I'm grateful you picked this up...I am after all looking for critiques, and the online communities certainly keep us all honest. We all can appreciate how written text denies us all the subtleties of verbal communication. You're likely right and I confused the images in my capture folder. I use VLC (for quick grabs) which captures with some pretty obscure names. I'll confirm this tonight. GS400 output is not detected properly by VLC, hence the 720 vs 853. All of the res charts should be at 4:3 (720x480). I know, smileys don't quite do it. We need embedded jpegs of our own facial expressions :-)