|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 25th, 2006, 05:36 AM | #61 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 49
|
I think we have to give Tony the benfit of the doubt here. I've shot with the P+S and the mini 35 and had a quick look at Waynes adapter at it's early stages 6 months ago. I also am going to get a sample of the glass so hope I can shed some light onto this. I'm keeping my fingers crossed it's the real deal.
|
June 25th, 2006, 05:47 AM | #62 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canary Wharf, London E14
Posts: 166
|
If I wanted to deceive people I would make sure that I did it properly. That is why I have insisted that people test the GG to ensure a fair test and see for themselves.
May I thank everyone for their help, input and interest. |
June 25th, 2006, 05:57 AM | #63 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 49
|
Tony I hope you don't think I was implying you were trying to deceive anyone. I was trying to say people should stop getting on your case here and let your product do the talking when it's been tested. I'm right behind you buddy. You could potentially blow this 35mm adaptor thing wide apart. Good luck man and I'll email you later about the size of glass.
|
June 25th, 2006, 08:05 AM | #64 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA.
Posts: 4,477
|
A fair call Stephen.
I have been looking for a holygrail which resolves like a wax GG without the problems. It costs me $AU50 to land a raw glass disk here in Australia and then I have to do the figuring and polishing, then the one surface of five micron finish. The whole thing comes to about 15 - 20 hours assuming things go right and don't have to be repeated. Factor in the value of the hours and dressing/polishing materials and somebody else's work starts to become attractive especially if it is of superior performance. Keep up the good work Tony. R and D is not an easy business. |
June 25th, 2006, 10:05 AM | #65 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brunei
Posts: 140
|
Hi Tony,
Can your relative glass factory cut out a 90mm diameter glass (3 or 4mm thick) with a center hole same size as a CDR and the glass then coated with your special wax? if can, I would like to order a couple of waxed GG and couple of unwaxed GG. I currently have a DIY mini35 using ground glass which I would like to replace. I don't mind buying some from you if you can do for me in the next couple of week. Kind regards, Alex Email me at ccm@brunet.bn |
June 25th, 2006, 12:05 PM | #66 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canary Wharf, London E14
Posts: 166
|
Thank you for your support Stephen and Bob.
That is exactly what I want to do - let the product do the talking. Hopefully it will say what I hope. Alex - With regards to your glass the diameter and thickness is fine. You have a choice out of several materials: - BK7 - Sapphire - Fused Silica - Fused Quartz The first 2 choices are the best for us but the glass is only as good as the spec. Wrong thickness, material, coating = Bad GG. Email me the exact measurements, material and quantity then I can get a price for you. |
June 25th, 2006, 12:27 PM | #67 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canary Wharf, London E14
Posts: 166
|
NOTE FOR ALL GG REQUESTS:
For all of those who have emailed requesting a GG sample will have to wait until the GG goes into commercial production. Only 10 samples are being sent out for testing. All DiGi35 products both Adapter and GG should be ready for order September 2006 time. Before that, footage and stills from testers and myself will be available for viewing at digi35.co.uk shortly. A brochure will also be available via post or email which will include product images including accessories, final pricing and other relavent information. The option to pre order will be given before the release date This will be limited to about 20 units. Take a note of email address: preorder@eldavinci.com Just out of interest, what would you expect to pay for a high quality GG? At the same time we want to be competitive but we must allow for the cost of process, seals and design which make the glass what it is. The GG will be guaranteed for probably 2 years. This will be finalised. |
June 26th, 2006, 07:08 AM | #68 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brunei
Posts: 140
|
Hi Tony,
I would like to try the BK7. The size is 95mm diameter with centre hole exactly the same size as the centre hole of a CDR. I think its exactly 15mm. But can't be sure. Can you check if that is correct. I need it to be roughly 4mm or 5mm being max as any thinner it may break. If the price including shipping is good, I would like to order 2 of each, i.e. 2 disk with the wax and 2 black disks. Please get back to me with the price including shipping. Do give me the best offer you can as I would at the same time do a test run for you with my mini35. |
June 26th, 2006, 08:01 AM | #69 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA.
Posts: 4,477
|
Alex.
My disks from Ohara in Japan have been BK7 so I can say the material works. Your choice of 90mm? That may leave you a little tight on two corners of your movie frame if you are using a CD motor and hub to run the disk. I looked at the smaller than CD-R sized disks and ruled them out for that reason Your choice for disks may also be a little too thick. I use disks which start out at 1.3mm thickness but come down to 0.9mm by the time they are figured, polished and then one side groundglassed. Thicker may make them less likely to break but too thick and some nasty optical things may start to happen. |
June 26th, 2006, 08:13 AM | #70 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK
Posts: 938
|
I have found I can fit a 36x24mm image onto a disk of 87mm dia. The SGpro uses a slightly bigger frame then this with a disk diameter of 93mm.
__________________
Thanks, Wayne. |
June 26th, 2006, 08:36 AM | #71 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brunei
Posts: 140
|
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the info. How do you get your disk? You order online? 90mm was what I started with and with my MX500, it was ok. Upping it by 5mm should give me extra room for filming. By the way, I wrote to you before if you remember and you sent me some info on your Agus mini35 plan. I assume you are using spinning GG. Or have you moved towards vibrating GG instead. Now I know this has been discussed before somewhere but may not be in details. But does anyone know how P+S vibrate their GG. I have done one before where I used a DIY vibrating motor to vibrate a focus screen on a bracket setup made out of plexiglass. Unfortunately the vibration was so loud the noise would just get recorded. I scraped the idea. You think by using a proper vibrating motor instead of a DIY one, it could reduce the sound considerably? |
June 26th, 2006, 08:44 AM | #72 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brunei
Posts: 140
|
Regarding my question about vibrating GG. Its ok, I search the site and tons of info.
|
June 26th, 2006, 04:39 PM | #73 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canary Wharf, London E14
Posts: 166
|
Sorry I haven't got to you, I've caught a chest infection off of my daughter so I'm having lots of sleep and Tramadol (wonder painkiller) and antibiotics which knock you out.
The thickness glass we use is 0.56mm (a tiny touch over half a mm) this is OK to use with the diameters that we use, so long as the diameter is within a certain ratio to the thickness you should have no problems. But bear in mind, and adaquate seal and O-rings are needed to add additional support to the glass and to reduce to risk of fracture. NOTE TO GG DIY'ERS: When sandwiching 2 pieces of glass together make sure that you make some kind of seal to ensure no glass separation occurs otherwise you'll have more then just 2 pieces of glass. The seal for the rotating adapter mount has been designed to accept a 36 x 24 image frame. Alex - I take it that you are requesting glass to make a GG and not a specific GG. Email me at the address below with your requirements and I'll get a quotation put together for you. Please specify material, internal and external diameter, thickness and quantity. I'm back off to bed cos the screen is making my head pound. Many Thanks, |
June 26th, 2006, 04:46 PM | #74 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canary Wharf, London E14
Posts: 166
|
Stephen - I will reply to your email possibly tomorrow. Haven't forgotten just lots on and not feeling to great.
|
June 27th, 2006, 02:21 AM | #75 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA.
Posts: 4,477
|
Quote:
I did not progress to another method of moving the groundglass. Using something else other than a disk makes sense as a lot of groundglass arrea is inefficiently wasted with a spinning disk just to get a movie frame sized image. The upside with a CD sized groundglass is that it is very simple. The rotating speed does not have to be fast because the linear surface speed of the disk even halfway in to the centre is quite fast for a given RPM. This means very little vibration. Even with my single 1.5v battery 3/4 flat, the disk speed is fast enough to de-resolve the groundglass texture. On the other hand, an oscillating, orbiting or random vibrating groundglass movement can use a much smaller piece of glass. However to get eough linear surface speed to de-resolve the groundglass texture, the cycle of movement must be much faster. Because the mechanical principle is not balanced in its nature, vibration will occur. Three main methods of reducing the vibration are desirable, ---- make the groundglass area as small as possible to keep moving mass to a minimum, barely larger than the image frame, which can cause problems with picking up an edge in the image, ---- adding counter-mass to the mechanism which requires very precise engineering, ---- making the excursion of the groundglass as small as possible to reduce the actual motion of mass to its practical minimum and reducing the amount of countermass needed for balancing, which introduces a problem of needing the vibration of cycle of movement to be even faster for the linear surface speed to be maintained, another precision engineering process. The upside is that all devices not using a spinning disk can be much smaller and lighter and the use of the groundglass material itself is more efficient. Method of moving the groundlass in the P+S is according to their own literature as I comprehend it, several half cranks with small vee pulleys on them, driven by a common rubber belt by a electric motor. This requires very precise engineering indeed. Counterweights can be added to the cranks but I don't know if anyone has bothered. Keeping the movement very small and fast without adding counterweights and adding countermass in the form of a heavy housing is nearly as good a method and less complicated. But the appliance is then heavier than it should be and there is vibration still to be felt and heard. Quyen's Letus35 as I understand it uses a different mechanical principle. It is elegently simple and requires fewer precision moving parts. Providing the flexible mounts on the pillars or sticks remain located as installed, there should not be movement of the groundglass off the focal plane due to wear. Vibration remains an issue as with the other methods and Quyen's passive method of moving the groundglass by onboard eccentric mass alone cannot be counterbalanced or the movement itself must fail. Counterbalance could be achieved with a second synchonous motor and contra-rotating counterweight mounted to the case however this would be an impracticable and diffucult system to engineer. Countermass is the only damping method that can be applied. However given there are only the motor bearings themselves which can wear, and there being a constant radial load being applied, there are about between nine and twelve fewer potential sources of future noise due to mechanical wear than in the other more complex methods using cranks. The simple CD-R sized disk and CD player motor provides a very cheap, simple and reliable method of moving a groundglass. It is the groundglass itself which proves to be the most expensive item if real glass is used. Making your own glass disk is a very hard task. If Tony Ralph can get his method up and running with an equivalent to an AO5 finish consistently around the groundglass, I would be inclined to buy that in rather than making my own. Getting my own groundglasses made and inventing the method cost me a 70% loss rate until I got the method sorted. END OF REPLY THIS QUESTION The tumbler method ("cement mixer") of dressing the glasses is a viable backyard method but not anywhere near the best. While a unifrom finish around the entire disk can be achieved with difficulty, getting a dead flat shape across the disk is another matter. While my disks flicker or show grain effects little more if any than P+S products, they do move the image ever so slightly due to uneven shaping across the faces which cannot be controlled in a tumbler. |
|
| ||||||
|
|