Sneak peak: DIY smallest vibrating adaptor.

Frank Hool · September 6th, 2006, 08:00 AM

Toenis, i'm not sure what setup You used in second file 2. SLR lens @ f16. Is that You stopped 35mm lens down to f=16? Asking because i don't see any difference in depth of field compared to first file 1. SLR lens @ f1.2.

Toenis Liivamaegi · September 6th, 2006, 08:48 AM

There certainly is difference in depth of field between those two HVX200 clips. I quess that maybe I set the aperture to f8 instead of f16. Objects were quite close to lens and the background just remained out of focus.

I`ll try to make some adequate tests when I get the time.

T

Frank Hool · September 6th, 2006, 02:03 PM

Toenis, if it's really 8 or 16 then congratulations! There's no adapter giving grainless footage over 5.6! Correct me if i'm wrong...

Magnus Andersen · September 6th, 2006, 05:41 PM

Hello all.

I made an attachment for my 35mm adapter using those same macrotubes were I glued a 58 mm UV filter to a plastic protective rear lens cap, makes for easy removal.

Best, M.

Toenis Liivamaegi · September 7th, 2006, 09:29 AM

One of the best DIY solutions to screw those macro tubes to camera lens is to take scheap 55mm rubber lens hood and rip off the rubber so you get a tube with 55mm male and female threads. Outside diamete of that tube just happens to be 57mm on that is very very snug fit into those EOS macro tubes shown on my pictures. Now one must only add step up/down ring(s) to fit your camera`s filter threads. put everithing together, align everything and glue that 55mm tube inside one of the macro tubes so that everithing stays aligned. It`s easyer to clue/align everithing when one makes align marks to everithing before glueing. Downside of that design is that you can use your camera to adaptor connector with only that camera it was aligned before fixing it with glue. Fortunately another set of tubes and rubber hood plus stepdown ring will cost $25 and you can use your adaptor again with different camera.

BTW two $15 macro tube sets might be needed for different camcorders to get the focusing screen to camera distance vignette free, it`s much cheaper than adding empty UV filter rings for cpacers.

AVOID USING SUPER GLUE - vapours from super glue will ruin any optical coatings and focusing screens alike.

Cheers,
T

Cole McDonald · September 7th, 2006, 11:59 AM

Would you mind diagramming the parts for us? I'd love to see how this is put together. Where do you find an oscillator for the screen?

Toenis Liivamaegi · September 8th, 2006, 06:13 AM

It`s CINEDOF™`s Noise Reductor beta ;) from www.cinedof.com

T

Toenis Liivamaegi · September 8th, 2006, 08:27 AM

Oh, I found a action shot from last night MV shoot with tiny GS150 attached to my DOF adaptor.
And some quick raw test footage from that exact moment.

Did I mention that CINEDOF™`s Noise Reductor runs 20+ hours straight on single off the shelf 1.2v 2300mAh AA size rechargeable battery?

Best regards,
T

Solomon Chase · September 8th, 2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toenis Liivamaegi

Oh, I found a action shot from last night MV shoot with tiny GS150 attached to my DOF adaptor.
And some quick raw test footage from that exact moment.

Did I mention that CINEDOF™`s Noise Reductor runs 20+ hours straight on single off the shelf 1.2v 2300mAh AA size rechargeable battery?

Best regards,
T

The latest design (on your website) looks alot more refined than your first concept picture.

So do you think it's comparable to a spinning disk or other vibration adapters at this point in reducing grain? Have you minimized movement on the focus plane? Because that seems to be the main problem you would run into with such a design.

Great work so far :)

Ben Winter · September 8th, 2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solomon Chase

Have you minimized movement on the focus plane? Because that seems to be the main problem you would run into with such a design.

How would that design move on the z axis? It seems like a pretty solid design in terms of just moving on the x and y...

Solomon Chase · September 8th, 2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Winter

How would that design move on the z axis? It seems like a pretty solid design in terms of just moving on the x and y...

because the thickness on the Z axis of the leaf spring might allow for Z movement. The type of plastic and coin motor used would effect it too I suppose.

Rich Hibner · September 8th, 2006, 06:11 PM

T,

Do you ever think your design will come in smaller sizes? Instead of 57mm maybe a 52 or 51mm design? I want to try and fit this in a thorlabs tube, but they only have 3in and 2in diamaters. I could go for the 3in but I'd have to order three seperate one's seeing how they only make 3in round 1in long and that's pretty costy. 2in would be almost too perfect. Lightweight, cheap and just screw on parts.

-Rh

Toenis Liivamaegi · September 10th, 2006, 09:50 AM

Solomon, it really is quite solid design with minimal Z axis movement as leaf springs are 2mm thick but only 0.44mm thin. One can move it on Z only with brute force.

Rich, we are working on smaller diametre design but as thre are no good reliable vibraton motors smaller than 12mm it is really hard to hide those under the 35mm frame without affecting overall design.

Best regards,
T

Solomon Chase · September 10th, 2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toenis Liivamaegi

Solomon, it really is quite solid design with minimal Z axis movement as leaf springs are 2mm thick but only 0.44mm thin. One can move it on Z only with brute force.

Rich, we are working on smaller diametre design but as thre are no good reliable vibraton motors smaller than 12mm it is really hard to hide those under the 35mm frame without affecting overall design.

Best regards,
T

That's awesome :)

Quyen (Letus35) uses a 10mm motor that has more vibration power than a 12mm coin motor on the Letus.

BTW, any experiments with smaller 4mm or 7mm vibration motors? definately a smaller footprint but they probably don't have the power

Giroud Francois · September 10th, 2006, 03:43 PM

you do not need power if the mass is light.
that is the problem of most vibrating system, that is while i was asking for the GG thickness.
ideally you should not even have to move the motor itself it the vibration can be transmitted a way or another (moving magnet or coil ?)
i am waiting for a 0.2mm glass to test how much it is better than a 1mm glass.

September 7th, 2006, 11:59 AM	#21
Cole McDonald Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sauk Rapids, MN, USA Posts: 1,675	Would you mind diagramming the parts for us? I'd love to see how this is put together. Where do you find an oscillator for the screen? __________________ Web Youtube Facebook

September 8th, 2006, 08:27 AM	#23
Toenis Liivamaegi Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Tartu, Estonia Posts: 579	Oh, I found a action shot from last night MV shoot with tiny GS150 attached to my DOF adaptor. And some quick raw test footage from that exact moment. Did I mention that CINEDOF™`s Noise Reductor runs 20+ hours straight on single off the shelf 1.2v 2300mAh AA size rechargeable battery? Best regards, T Last edited by Toenis Liivamaegi; September 8th, 2006 at 09:20 AM.

September 6th, 2006, 08:00 AM	#16
Frank Hool Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Barca Spain Posts: 384	Toenis, i'm not sure what setup You used in second file 2. SLR lens @ f16. Is that You stopped 35mm lens down to f=16? Asking because i don't see any difference in depth of field compared to first file 1. SLR lens @ f1.2.

September 6th, 2006, 08:48 AM	#17
Toenis Liivamaegi Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Tartu, Estonia Posts: 579	There certainly is difference in depth of field between those two HVX200 clips. I quess that maybe I set the aperture to f8 instead of f16. Objects were quite close to lens and the background just remained out of focus. I`ll try to make some adequate tests when I get the time. T

September 6th, 2006, 02:03 PM	#18
Frank Hool Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Barca Spain Posts: 384	Toenis, if it's really 8 or 16 then congratulations! There's no adapter giving grainless footage over 5.6! Correct me if i'm wrong...

September 6th, 2006, 05:41 PM	#19
Magnus Andersen New Boot Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 15	Hello all. I made an attachment for my 35mm adapter using those same macrotubes were I glued a 58 mm UV filter to a plastic protective rear lens cap, makes for easy removal. Best, M.

September 7th, 2006, 09:29 AM	#20
Toenis Liivamaegi Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Tartu, Estonia Posts: 579	One of the best DIY solutions to screw those macro tubes to camera lens is to take scheap 55mm rubber lens hood and rip off the rubber so you get a tube with 55mm male and female threads. Outside diamete of that tube just happens to be 57mm on that is very very snug fit into those EOS macro tubes shown on my pictures. Now one must only add step up/down ring(s) to fit your camera`s filter threads. put everithing together, align everything and glue that 55mm tube inside one of the macro tubes so that everithing stays aligned. It`s easyer to clue/align everithing when one makes align marks to everithing before glueing. Downside of that design is that you can use your camera to adaptor connector with only that camera it was aligned before fixing it with glue. Fortunately another set of tubes and rubber hood plus stepdown ring will cost $25 and you can use your adaptor again with different camera. BTW two $15 macro tube sets might be needed for different camcorders to get the focusing screen to camera distance vignette free, it`s much cheaper than adding empty UV filter rings for cpacers. AVOID USING SUPER GLUE - vapours from super glue will ruin any optical coatings and focusing screens alike. Cheers, T

September 8th, 2006, 06:13 AM	#22
Toenis Liivamaegi Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Tartu, Estonia Posts: 579	It`s CINEDOF™`s Noise Reductor beta ;) from www.cinedof.com T

September 8th, 2006, 06:11 PM	#27
Rich Hibner Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 218 Images: 1	T, Do you ever think your design will come in smaller sizes? Instead of 57mm maybe a 52 or 51mm design? I want to try and fit this in a thorlabs tube, but they only have 3in and 2in diamaters. I could go for the 3in but I'd have to order three seperate one's seeing how they only make 3in round 1in long and that's pretty costy. 2in would be almost too perfect. Lightweight, cheap and just screw on parts. -Rh

September 10th, 2006, 09:50 AM	#28
Toenis Liivamaegi Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Tartu, Estonia Posts: 579	Solomon, it really is quite solid design with minimal Z axis movement as leaf springs are 2mm thick but only 0.44mm thin. One can move it on Z only with brute force. Rich, we are working on smaller diametre design but as thre are no good reliable vibraton motors smaller than 12mm it is really hard to hide those under the 35mm frame without affecting overall design. Best regards, T

September 10th, 2006, 03:43 PM	#30
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	you do not need power if the mass is light. that is the problem of most vibrating system, that is while i was asking for the GG thickness. ideally you should not even have to move the motor itself it the vibration can be transmitted a way or another (moving magnet or coil ?) i am waiting for a 0.2mm glass to test how much it is better than a 1mm glass.