See that, Obin? You owe me one.

One year old thread. Same old MPIC for one year (new rods mount though)....
G35, Micro35, Letus, My35, SG35, Indie35 (sorry if I missed anyone) all...demonstrating the sustained and growing interest in a better video image.

Having a few enterprises taking off during the same year means something. It actually means a lot!

Light loss, grain, vigneting and chromatic aberrations. We all know them, we see them and we fight them. Size, weight, convenience, dust, noise level, resolution charts, sample footage and frames from the footage were captured and made public to support one device or another.

The interest IS there. The results... also (in different flavors) subject to the level of commitment commensurate with experience and funds available.

Spinning and shaking a GG plus the static solution from G35. Oscar as one of the masters of wax technique and other followers have somewhat demonstrated the "impossible" is possible. Hard to reproduce? We all know it.
Jonathan is taking the same route to a commercial level (hopefully rather sooner than latter) Unhappy with his price? DIY! take if from Oscar and do it if you can.
Spin a GG! Grind a gg. Optosigma... try them all and keep questioning the prices while spending money ($10 at a time, no more!) on your personal attempts. Someone asked a while ago on this thread: c’mmon Dan, how much do you want to charge for a “shake”
Well, it seems to go well for $300. Why don’t I sell at that price? I may withdraw the offer altogether.
The MPIC is nothing but a time black hole. I have to hold breath for about ten days to make on. One mistake at any point I time and previous work is down the drain.

Let's talk price if you will (no sarcasm involved) but no offences either and like Chris just pointed out this morning: don’t like, don’t buy!

There is alot of truth in what Dan says - the time and effort to create one and create one right - 'the black hole' as he calls it. My original device needed alot of attention (about 8 months and I still don't have it right!), the Letus35a needs constant cleaning for lens and dust particles - and if Dan's MPIC is a sealed unit, there can be NO dust or anything in that device, that probably means a vacuum seal. Not cheap and not easy.

I don't know about a vacuum seal. That seems like overkill when you can simply clean out the unit and make sure the casing is tight. Besides, a unit can be vacuum sealed but it wouldn't do much if there was a loose particle inside. The Letus suffers from dust because the plastic gets scraped off into particles when the macro part gets pushed inside the aluminum tube. Someone mentioned lining the inside with the soft side of Velcro, and it seems like a viable idea.

But Dan--since he's the only one who can answer that--is the unit vacuum sealed? And what's this $8000/$2000 business? If I ordered an MPIC today would I really be paying $8000?

The 2K was a promotion. The current 8K was "I need a break to see if is worth my time". The price (as of today) is 4500 with a FF and a set of gears or 3600 just for MPIC (rods system included). I am not planning to make them forever and I could withdraw this offer any time. (sorry.. too much breath holding to make one... I need some fresh air)
There is no vacuum inside, but the unit is watertight (NOT WATER PROOF)
You can splash it but not submerge it under water!!!!!!!! (no need for any of those anyway!) It should be treated like any other optical instrument.
I don't use Velcro; I use something else for that job.
If anyone wants any of it, let me know now before I get carried away with something else. This one is not new to me anymore.

The 2K was a promotion. The current 8K was "I need a break to see if is worth my time". The price (as of today) is 4500 with a FF and a set of gears or 3600 just for MPIC (rods system included).

Hey Dan, have you ever put together a Demo DVD with any footage?

What's the max F-Stop on the lens that works without vignetting etc.?

What happens if the motor dies or it otherwise breaks? Can we repair it ourselves or do we have to send it to you?

Is the HVX200 version any different or the same?

Thanks!

>>> have you ever put together a Demo DVD with any footage?<<<

Yes! Shipping with each gear or FF. Steev? Greg? John? Others? Comments on the footage? Felix hair sharp enough on 7ft projected screen?

>>>What's the max F-Stop on the lens that works without vigneting etc.?<<<

Vigneting has nothing to with f-stops (in this case!). Grain has. Subject to light available, I had a relatively clean (somewhat "darker" or... a different look with a "different" contrast) image at 22. Grain still "blends in the motion" but the light level being reduced a lot, it looks different (similar to busting the gain in low light!). This is just if the avail light is not enough for the camcorder (which on a sunny day should not be a problem)

<<<What happens if the motor dies or it otherwise breaks?>>>>

A $50 Swiss made motor "dies hard" (specially when doesn't have much to do!!!)
I had some for 7 (SEVEN) years working (in other applications). Not one problem. (In Swiss we trust!)

<<<<Can we repair it ourselves or do we have to send it to you?>>>>

I would not open one of them again. No point. Replace (if EVER need be)
I would only guess I am more efficient to do that job and you could make more money in your field instead of "exploring" and risking in the same amount of time. Nevertheless, if you want, you can open, look, change, replace at your own pace, but.. if you send it back, you may have to pay a lot more.

<<<Is the HVX200 version any different or the same?>>>

Same thing. Mounting distance to lens subject to camcorder lens (none? one? two empty filters?). Steev should be the first one to find out. Here it is:
http://www.care2.com/c2c/photos/view/741898547/MPIC___A_video_image_converter/IMGA2144_001.jpg.html

have you ever put together a Demo DVD with any footage?

On the DVD there are instructions on how to gear your lenses, and how to use the Follow Focus. There is also example MPIC footage that ranges from good to spectacular. There's not a lot of 24p, but not a big deal. I'll be making enough 24p or 30p footage on my own. :)

What's the max F-Stop on the lens that works without vigneting etc.?

I'll echo what Dan said. F-stop doesn't have anything to do with Vignetting as far as I can tell. I would definitely advise not stopping the 35mm lens down very far - use filters instead. And don't stop your video camera's iris down too far either - use the built in ND filters if need be.

What happens if the motor dies or it otherwise breaks?

By the time it breaks, I would assume I will have either shot a ton of stuff already with it and made my money back plus profit, or there will be 35mm sized sensor HD cams within reach. Don't sweat it.

Can we repair it ourselves or do we have to send it to you?

I sure wouldn't try. Worst case, use it without the vibration - the screen is plenty good enough - refer to my U35A (http://www.holyzoo.com/content/35mm/) footage to see what I'm talking about.

Is the HVX200 version any different or the same?

Same unit should work on the HVX200. I already have a step ring ready to adapt 72mm to 82mm. I may need to take out my spacer, or leave it in, but I'm not too worried about it. At this point I'm getting really used to taking leaps of faith, and I haven't been bit in the ass yet. It also pays to trust who you're buying stuff from. Here's a short list - Dan, Panasonic, Apple, Seritek, Hitachi, Bogen Manfrotto, B&H Photo, etc. A lot of speculative purchases. So far so good. ;)

On the DVD there are instructions on how to gear your lenses, and how to use the Follow Focus.

So the gearing is something you do yourself?


I'll echo what Dan said. F-stop doesn't have anything to do with Vignetting as far as I can tell. I would definitely advise not stopping the 35mm lens down very far - use filters instead. And don't stop your video camera's iris down too far either - use the built in ND filters if need be.


I guess I'm more thinking about increased DOF. If you've got a 50mm focused at 6 ft you need to get to F8 in order for 5 to 7 feet to be in focus. Not a huge range if the camera or actors are moving. Which leads me to the idea that a 28 or 35mm lens might be better for a lot of situations depending on how sharp they come in. Have you tested those yet?

Thanks for the great response!

So the gearing is something you do yourself?

Gearing lenses seems like a pretty trivial job--I think in an earlier post Dan mentioned that it takes maybe five minutes per lens for an unseasoned "gearer." I think you simply buy the gears from Dan, they come with your FF unit, and you turn the screws yourself. Not something you'd need Dan for, i think :)

I agree with you on the DOF and aperture thing. A lot of people keep saying "Just use ND's" when I mention it but I'm always referring to the change in depth of field, which not many people seem to take into account for some reason :(. With these adapters, I never consider stopping down the lens for actual light control, only to change DOF. I got good results at high numbers with the Letus and therefore I can't see how Dan's could be any worse...try using big lenses maybe. I've got a 135mm on the way.

Dan's could be any worse...try using big lenses maybe. I've got a 135mm on the way.

The longer the lens the more shallow the DOF. So that 135mm is going to have a lot less in focus than a 50mm at the same distance.

A 20mm is going to give a wider focus range, but I think they tend to be soft or may introduce other issues.

I see what's going on with the gears now... thanks.

Yeah, never mind...me talking gibberish again. Sorry.

For some reason I was not notified of your replays.(Joel, email me please)

Gearing the lens is covered on the DVD, same for FF use and mounting configs.

For lenses use:
One usually will choose a certain focal as to tell the story best (best lens for the shot and the action involved)

If there is a lot of movement, one usually needs to "see" that movement and a wider lens (28?35?) will usually do (for close range). You can get the same field of view if you have the room to record the action with a tighter lens (50?) but you will have to step back the camera (may not be practical as well)

Longer lens are usually for "beauty shoots"/portrait lens. Most of the dialog/reactions fall in this category. There are also exceptions when one would choose a wide and place a character in CU (1 ft from the lens) and the rest of the room/scene soft and use a "head turning" or a "door opening" in the BG to motivate a focus roll from the CU to BG.

Playing the action "within the DOF" of a lens is cheap! (and in a sense cheating) You don’t cheat nobody but yourselves. Don't make it a rule and don't be lazy! Pull focus! Even if that means you have to rehears the action and take some marks.

Use the DOF avail at higher apertures (2.8 or 4) only as a "safety net", but PULL FOCUS!!! On a wide lens is much easier to get the shoot, but on a tighter lens you would defeat the whole purpose and risk to end up at the end of the day with “softies” after all the sweat and expenses involved. Old fashion results and beauty shots come following old fashion rules. That is why they use a “focus puller” and a “focus puller” could make up to $500/day! All there “sweating bullets”, end of the day the pic is soft! Don't be lazy!

Use the DOF avail at higher apertures (2.8 or 4) only as a "safety net", but PULL FOCUS!!!

You're a great inventor Dan and I really didn't want to have cinematography rant but since you insist...

I think you started off strong by saying you use the lens that tells the story best but you kinda lost me when you didn't say the EXACT same thing about aperture. DPs DO NOT shoot F1.4 all the time simply because they CAN. That simply isn't best a lot of the time.

Sometimes F2.8, F4 or F8 makes the prettiest bokeh and/or tells the story best in a given environment. Sometimes F16 does best. There are a ZILLION examples of shots in FEATURE films using VERY deep DOF because that's what told the story best for that scene.

Also, where is the sweet spot of most lenses? It's not 1.4 or 2.8. In reality, DP's are at F4 or f5.6 a lot of the time. Those are still SHALLOW apertures that blur the background beautifully. The DPs still have to pull focus, block and can't get lazy at those apertures. Pull out your DOF chart and take a look at a 50mm at F5.6 and tell me how "lazy" a DP can be about pulling focus. (Here - I'll help: focused at 5 ft the near focus is 4.6' and far is 5.6'). A FOOT! If the actor takes one step closer they are going out of focus at 5.6. And the closer they get to the camera the more shallow the DOF becomes. At 2 feet there's a whopping one inch. Yeah, real lazy.

Here's a nice link everyone who worships at the alter of 1.4 can use to petrify themselves: http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html

Check out F1.4 focused at 5 feet and see what you get. Commander Data better be pulling focus for you.

Joel, something in Dan's award winning digital focus system for cinecams tells me I'm going to enjoy his reply to your post :-)

Joel, something in Dan's award winning digital focus system for cinecams tells me I'm going to enjoy his reply to your post :-)

Hah - my post was actually an incredibly clever subliminal ad for Dan's digital focus system! Which is a cool idea by the way - as I said, Dan's a great inventor. :-)

hehehe... you pips....
Soo... the lens "sweet spot" is 4-5.6?????????
Nooooooohhhh,
I wouldn't have guessed in a million years! Dam .... (mumble, mumble)

But you know what that means?

It means that instead of a inky-blondie you will need two read nec-ogh-cough heads! Double the light for each stop that is. Time and budget come to mind (space for extra c-stands, sand bags, screens and filters)...... and all of a sudden, you wonder: hey ! where did everybody go? me crew, where is she? why don't she work for me to set up lights’s such?
Because der ain't no crew nor budget no mo, siR and you have to do with a bounce card and ged-a hel-out-a-dere.

In an "ideal" world we would be all shooting FILM and we wouldn’t be having this conversation here. However, the world is not perfect and we do. We stretch the budget every day (nooooh... do we?) for what-not including lights package and crew to set it up. Did I hear anyone mentioning we don't even shoot no stnkn' film no mo?

Outside? By all means! Is FREE and we can do 4 and 5.6 especially for medium shoots.

CU and ECU, (outside) will "cry" for ND's instead of 4 and 5.6 (subject to taste) Why?

Because most CU require some diffusion anyway to cut down the wrinkles, (or you don't come back to photograph me! HERE THAT? God, I look like hell) (well, the filter to hide “all that” is the lens covers, maam, mumble and teeth grinding in the BG with a charming smile on the face).
But you know what? You can get that FREE at 1.3 (or 1.4)

The problem is inside when the budget hurts. I have seen and done both 4 and 1.3 to realize the challenge of focus pulling. I got my hands freezing on the focus knob at night in the woods while raining. Been there. Looks like the trip to heaven goes through hell.... (still smells like coal and tar around here for some reason, which is good! because that means I am not there yet!)

It means that instead of a inky-blondie you will need two read nec-ogh-cough heads! Double the light for each stop that is.

Yeah, you're right about all that stuff. Or get Kinos (even more spendy - but efficient)... but yes, a real light kit will be required... along with a focus puller to make pretty stuff.

Luckily, I've shot a number of 16mm shorts so none of this stuff is unanticipated. I probably won't be runnin' and gunnin' much. I want to make a "movie".

But isn't this where the MPIC shines? Brighter than the rest? The brightest unit does have a big advantage. Of course the G35 and Micro35 guys are claiming almost no light loss from the lens.

But isn't this where the MPIC shines? Brighter than the rest?
Well, if God created man in his likeness, we all do the same with what we do, right? We create according to what and how we are, right? As for me, being folliculary challenged, I shine (even in low light) and so do all my "toys" (FF with LED's? phew)

Ha ha ha

Dan, you are a nut case but that one was hilarious

Sometimes F2.8, F4 or F8 makes the prettiest bokeh and/or tells the story best in a given environment. Sometimes F16 does best. There are a ZILLION examples of shots in FEATURE films using VERY deep DOF because that's what told the story best for that scene. DP's are at F4 or f5.6 a lot of the time. Those are still SHALLOW apertures that blur the background beautifully. The DPs still have to pull focus, block and can't get lazy at those apertures. Pull out your DOF chart and take a look at a 50mm at F5.6 and tell me how "lazy" a DP can be about pulling focus. (Here - I'll help: focused at 5 ft the near focus is 4.6' and far is 5.6'). A FOOT! If the actor takes one step closer they are going out of focus at 5.6. And the closer they get to the camera the more shallow the DOF becomes. At 2 feet there's a whopping one inch.

I thought I'd finally respond to this, since I've been testing this more lately.

I'd say with any of these 35mm adapters/imagers, if you're wanting to take the lens down to f/16 or even f/8, in order to increase your depth of field for the look you're after, or for ease of focusing, your image is going to turn to mud, haze, and blotches. Ya gotta remember we're dealing with the illusion of shooting on film. The very nature of what we're doing with these contraptions is working in the art of magic. So it's important to know what boundaries you have to work with in order to create your illusion. I will most likely not go past f/5, for the sake of image quality.

If I really needed a lot of depth of field, I'd take the rig off and use the stock lens. So, yes this all means that your 35mm imager work will be requiring some high maintenance focusing for sure. It's a real eye opening experience to me. I'm up for the challenge for the rewards it brings. Most in depth discussions on these boards, regarding 35mm imagers, raise the issue, should keep raising the issue, and should *not* exclude the issue, of the need to get really aggressive, dedicated, and ambitious about focusing.

As Dan said, ideally we would be shooting on film. I'll add that an alternative in the future will be relatively affordable 35mm sized sensor digital cams.

Until then, it still stands that it's an amazing time where we can get the look we're after, to some degree, using relatively inexpensive technology, that is now available.

I thought I'd finally respond to this, since I've been testing this more lately.

I'd say with any of these 35mm adapters/imagers, if you're wanting to take the lens down to f/16 or even f/8, in order to increase your depth of field for the look you're after, or for ease of focusing, your image is going to turn to mud, haze, and blotches. Ya gotta remember we're dealing with the illusion of shooting on film. The very nature of what we're doing with these contraptions is working in the art of magic. So it's important to know what boundaries you have to work with in order to create your illusion. I will most likely not go past f/5, for the sake of image quality.

If I really needed a lot of depth of field, I'd take the rig off and use the stock lens. So, yes this all means that your 35mm imager work will be requiring some high maintenance focusing for sure. It's a real eye opening experience to me. I'm up for the challenge for the rewards it brings. Most in depth discussions on these boards, regarding 35mm imagers, raise the issue, should keep raising the issue, and should *not* exclude the issue, of the need to get really aggressive, dedicated, and ambitious about focusing.

As Dan said, ideally we would be shooting on film. I'll add that an alternative in the future will be relatively affordable 35mm sized sensor digital cams.

Until then, it still stands that it's an amazing time where we can get the look we're after, to some degree, using relatively inexpensive technology, that is now available.
Amen Brother!

That's a good point Steev. Stopping down the lens will defeat the purpose of shallow DOF in the first place. I’m not sure I would shoot wide open for softness reasons, but a F2.8 to F4 seems to be about the most reasonable working range to keep the DOF shallow. At F8 and up you might as well use the stock zoom and save you the trouble.

At F8 and up you might as well use the stock zoom and save you the trouble.

Stock video lenses are more like F22 than F8.

The reality appears to be that F8 is just not doable on these adapters. That solves that - it's simply a limitation.

I never intended this to be about lazy focusing. It's an asthetic thing. I find F1.4 WAY too shallow in many instances. I hate most of "teacup" tests people post where the front edge of the cup is in focus and the back edge of the cup is already out of focus and everything behind that looks a like a 100 pixel blur. That looks like crap for anything but teacups and thimbles. I'll probably be F4 to 5.6 most of the time.