Frank,

I saw the pics and first clip (slooow download to go for the other two but I will watch them) so will only comment on what I have seen so far:

The "look" is definitely there. You've got it and is BEAUTIFULL. Bravo!!!

Sharpness? Is subject to precise focusing (on the SLR lens AND the camcorder lens on the screen)
That is why I suggested a sloooow pan with a CU (precise focused) but since there is too much about focus (and focusing techniques while in motion) a static still is best to demonstrate the apparatus.

So far, the pics seems a touch soft (overall) It may be that the lens was not focused on the GG at best, or.... the thickness of the wax was too big. I have not experimented the wax technic but I can only imagine that if it is too thick, focus will not happen on a plane, but in the thickness of the wax layer (hence soft) you know better what can be done.
However it is amazing (to me) how well and even you managed to spread it.
One "sin" is still there though.
Vigneting. Not your fault (of course).
Here is a thought to overcome it:
Take a "normal focusing screen" from your SLR and wax the matte side. You will get rid of any AF marks or anything may be there and get the best of a static GG that can be made. The Fresnel (from the other side) will help you with vigneting while having the mattest matte surface to focus on, on the opposite side, and you are in business.
I will not try it since I have experienced a great loss of screens trying to "matte" the matte side with acetone, milling them, clear nail lacquer, etc while keeping CLEAN the Fresnel side!!!!. Did not get them to a satisfactory surface. Maybe wax is the solution. I'll be curious if you can get acceptable results. I will define what I see as acceptable: If you can take a still (high rez) and footage (nothing fancy, nothing moving too much, a slow pan at most or just a slow focus roll between MARKED distances!)and display it on a 50" plasma (in a local electronics retailer) and you like the image, than is not acceptable, is very good. You may be your best critic.
I hope this helps.

PS1
Try a 4, 5.6, 8 as well to find out limitations (if any...)
PS2 Saw the second clip. All of the above still valid.

Dan,

Thanks for checking out some of the footage! Thank you for the compliment!

You are absolutely right about the wax layer. If it is too thick, the image/light gets distributed throughout and becomes too soft. I am not working with the most precise measurements. - I would have to express the distance in terms of how many times the aluminum strips are folded. :-)

As far as the vignetting - I recently got some condensers in and have yet to shoot some new footage with them. They clearly make a difference when I look at the projected image, holding the pieces together by hand, but how the camera will see it is yet to be determined.

I have wondered if waxing a ground glass would work. I know it would help lessen the grain, but I dismissed the idea thinking that I might as well just go for all-wax to get the best possible image. HOWEVER, given the fact that the ground side of the glass is diffuse the wax should distribute more evenly, catching the wax in the 'pits' where the glass has been ground. I think gravity would do the work here. As long as you have an even grind, you should get an even layer of wax.

Once it cools, you would still need a glass covering for the wax layer.

Hrm...sounds like something worth a try.

Thank you for all the feedback and advice!

Frank great job on he wex technique. I did notice something else that hasnt been mentioned though. It appears that the image becomes increasingly more out of focus near the edges of the screen. I've seen this happen in some of my tests as well. The problem and solution is this:

The problems is your video camera's lens is too close to the wax screen. When ever a video camera films something flat thats extremely close the video camera lens it can not keep the entire object in focus at one time. The reason being is that the distance between the center of the wax screen (or object) and the cameras CCD vs. the distance between the outter edges of the screen (object) and the CCD is slightly different. Its extremely minor but at these very short distances every mm counts when it comes to DOF.

The solution is simple. Simply increase the distance between the wax screen and the camera's CCDs. A few inches should do. This also fixes another problem that you may or may not have noticed - barrel distortion. At these extremely close distances on wider lenses your going to get some. Moving the screen away a few inches and zooming in a tad to reframe will fix this.

To test both of these problems simply shoot a piece of graph paper and make sure the lines stay in focus and perfectly square.

You are right about the edges being out of focus. I just assumed a condenser could fix it, but what you are saying makes perfect sense. I will mount the glass further away from the camera and zoom in a bit more. This, combined with condensers, should give a pretty nice image.

Thanks for the info, Brett!

Frank- Can you tell us how you made your wax diffuser? Sounds like a good alternative to gg.

Hi Kyle!

Check out this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33489

I have completed a few test (clips and pics) and I need some feedback. More to come.
Since web clips are limited, I took HIREZ pics (under the same conditions aside from video) to show the real resolution of the images.

1.4 to 16 is done.
uncontrolled and less than ideal light, done.
A few different lens (50, 135, 200mm) done.

Here is the link; (CHECK ALL 5 PAGES, please)

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/ALL-CLIP-TESTS?page=1

They all have explicit information and examples about the shooting conditions.

What other tests would you like to see?

(I do want to hear crane and/or steadicam unless you are willing to play "producer" :-))

Dan,

Thanks for putting up some framegrabs and video clips! Looks like you've gotten around the hotspot and vignetting problems. Excellent quality!

What about some underwater footage? ;-)

Thanks Frank.
Just in case there are others like me;
if you click again on the same pic, you will see the hirez pic (down to the CCD pixels)
You can open two windows for same pic ; STATIC and MOTION to compare the dif. made.
As for the underwater footage, I might post it today.

<<<--
What other tests would you like to see?
-->>>


Looks promising so far Dan. I'd like to see some daytime shots panning with people moving at different f-stops and focal lengths. I'd also like to see a closeup of a face with and without camera pan.

A swedish bikini team test shoot would probably the be best.

Thanks Joel,
Bring the bikini team, I'll take care of the rest.
Here is your test Frank (as requested)

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/ALL-CLIP-TESTS/underwater.wmv

WHAT?!?! Nice job! Thank you!

LOL! My masking-tape-sealed adapter wouldn't have passed that test. ;-)

If I give you my address, will you send me one of your adapters? I could be a beta-tester or something.

Dan excellent job. I have to admit that I held my breath when you submerged the adapter into the bowl. I own a DVX100, will your adapter work and are there any problems shooting 24P? Once again great work.

Thank you Ernest,

>>>>>I have to admit that I held my breath when you submerged the adapter into the bowl<<<<<<<<<<

Me toooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

Naaaaah. I would have not risk it!

I kinda know what I am doing here (or at least I am very good at pretending, aint I? ....lol)

I did not test it yet on any camcorders (other than Panasonic)
When I finish MY image tests, I will look into mating it with other cameras.

Awesome. I'm looking forward to the day this thing is available. Great work Dan. You da man.

Dan, what is your DOF device made out of?

Tough ABS plastic. I stood on it today but I did not record the video. Tomorrow will be posted on my site as one of the "must have" tests. How did you like the "underwater footage"?

I didn't really understand it. You took the device and put it underwater, right? I didn't know if that was to show that it was water-proof or you wanted to actually shoot footage underwater?!

I think it was intended to display the waterproof characteristics :)

To actually shoot underwater you need lenses (and a housing for them and the camera) That "underwater footage" was a joke: HA, HA, HA and you were supposed to laugh.
But accidents happen. There was an ARRI dropped from a small boat (some 10 years ago) How long it took to have it back, I do not know. The insurance covered the incident.
But it could happen.

Awesome achievment, Dan!
I am ready for it!
Do you have a time frame?
Would it be available in other mounts (Canon, Nikon, PL)?

Thank you Val,
I am considering a few alternatives about production.
I'll post the news in some magazines and here when the time comes.
About mounts; I will most likely start with Nikon (fixed) and maybe go for other mounts later. So far, the fact that one is not limited to a wide aperture to work with is a BIG bonus:
see some of the pics on the site; were taken @5.6 on a 200mm at night. I think that is good enough (and limited only to the camcorder's sensitivity)

Though I have a full kit of top Nikon glass for stills work, I think that a PL mount would be a great option. Full field 35mm gives a depth of field that makes it more difficult to work with in a production environement, where you have to shoot xx pages of script per day. The addition of various readily available accessories (matte boxes, follow focus...) and not mentioning the speed and the consistency of certain sets of lenses (contrast, accutance, color rendition) makes the PL a very important option.
IMO the full field 35mm (24x36mm) is nice to be used for certain effects, for a look that can be welcomed or sustained in a short, music video, commercial but not neceserally for a full length narative feature, unless you really want it, and, why not use it if it's out there.
Having the PL mount will open and create interest about your adaptor to a wider variety of potential users as well.
I should probably stop here in advocating this, because I might be flamed badly, we are discussing alternative imaging methods...
Congrats again
PS What is the noise level of the adaptor?

I'm not sure shooting full frame 35mm vs cinema 35mm sized frame has anything to do with the DOF. If anything shooting cinema would give the appearance of a shallower DOF.

Dan, looks great.

The night stuff at the gas station how'd you shoot that? I mean lighting wise.

Also do you lose any stops like the other adapters?

Congratulations Dan,

i dont know if this has been brought up before but...

what is the system of the groundglass? does it spin oscilate?
what kind of ground glass did u use?

keep up the good work!

Not Dan but I think I can answer some of those questions. Dan can correct me if I am wrong:

1) oscillating ground glass
2) beattie screen

Thank you Gents for your sustained interest. It will pay off.
Val said: (Simon says....:-)
>>>Full field 35mm gives a depth of field that makes it more difficult to work with in a production environment, where you have to shoot xx pages of script per day<<<<
and also:
>>>>IMO the full field 35mm (24x36mm) is nice to be used for certain effects, for a look that can be welcomed or sustained in a short, music video, commercial but not necessarily for a full length narrative feature, unless you really want it, and, why not use it if it's out there.<<<<<<

For those that fully know the following, excuse me reiterating basics here. Is just expressing personal understandings of the field (video, still and MP) BTW, Val, relax, please, you said nothing wrong, is just a different perspective as follows.

Now:

For ANY given format (16mm, 35mm, 60mm and larger as in still photography and smaller such as 2/3", 1/3" down to 1/6"!!!!!
as in the Panasonic GS200 I am using for my tests:-)<
the "NORMAL" lens (as focal length) is the one that will produce an image as seen by the naked eye and is, FOR ANAY GIVEN FORMAT equal to the diagonal of the format.
In MP, for an 18/24mm frame, the diagonal of that frame is 30mm. That is why, the "normal" is 32mm. For the same reason in still photography (24/36) the "normal" is 50mm (although it should be 43.26mm)
Now, that we've got that out of the way:

Imagine a "perfect" lens (call it relay lens if you want) that picks up an image from a GG and projects it on a CCD or CMOS.

First we first use a Zeiss 32mm to get an image on an 18/24 GG. Say that Zeiss lens resolves 100 lines/cm
(these figures are "made up" to ease the understanding of the point, OK?????)
How many vertical lines can we see form the GG using Zeiss? 240 lines.
Now we switch the Zeiss with a Nikon 50mm projecting the same image as seen before (same perspective, same etc)
on a 24/36mm GG . (the same "perfect" relay lens will be used) BUT!!!!
Lets say Nikon can only resolve 65 lines/cm (in real life is better than this, but let's just pretend)
How many sharp lines will Nikon project on the 36mm available? 65X3.6=234 lines.
That is not all.
Even if the difference is greater than depicted in the previous example (favoring Zeiss), the following factors should also be considered:
The "final" "movie" will end up (best case scenario) on a digital display (50" plasma) and not on a xx feet/xx feet theatre. Right?
Why? Because even if one will attempt to transfer material from the CCD (recorded by the natural lens of the camcorder) onto film for theatre, the magnification ratio does not help him much. Now, if one spends all that money on sets, props, talent, etc (thinking theatre) might as well use film (or HD). Otherwise, release it on DVD and call it a day.
The whole idea (with this adapters) is to maintain the "scent" of "film" (whatever is left of it) without the cost. Right?
Than, (and that's a wrap on this subject) if $$$$$$$$$$ is the "name of the game" why get Zeiss involved here?
They are too good (and too expensive) for this game.
If used on a Hi Def camera, YES, by all means (but if the producers find out they have a "choice", watch out!!)
They are indeed color corrected, they do not breath (while focusing) they come with the gear mounted and many other goodies......but:
will a tiny breath of focus from a Nikon be as annoying on a regular TV set as it would be in the theatre. No. Why? Size. Will MOST notice? ...... Who knows?.........
Anyway, this is my understanding on the subject and feel free to express your POV. Back.
Val, for noise level I have a short clip on my site. I would call it acceptable. I have heard many MP cameras WAY worse (but most readers on this forum are used with camcorder comfort and mic on it! (close to the lens that is)
If it would be a dead quiet recoding studio, a blimp might be needed or...... boom the mic.
Right now, if I hold it in front of my at 30cm I can not hear it (unless I follow in Beethoven's footsteps) I can hear it if I hold it next to my (right) ear (never tried the left one)
Garry, thanks for reminding me one of the tests I skipped till now. Light loss. Check out my site by tomorrow and you will see. (I have noticed an increase!!!! instead of loss of light! due to the focusing screen) Here is a test you can do now: take a magnifying sheet from a $ store, aim a camcorder towards a well lit wall and take a light reading. Then, keep the focusing screen at its focal length in front of the camcorder and take another reading. That is how much light I loose. Let me put it this way. The sun does not burn your skin, but if you use a lens, you might smell the brightness dif (lol)
As for those shots, I used the avail light. Frame, focus, shoot. Glad you like it. I'll be banned soon for the long posts here, so enjoy them while I am still with you.

Damn, I am back. Did you miss me?
THX for the congrats.
Beattie and ............
I would not call a circular movement an "oscilation"
Oscilation (as I understand it) is a movement between two points. That is not it. Is circular. Glad you like it. More footage today. Stay tuned.

Dan,
So the stuff on your website was shot with a Beattie screen?

yes

http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/ALL-CLIP-TESTS/underwater.wmv

Just making it right click save as.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : Damn, I am back. Did you miss me?
THX for the congrats.
Beattie and ............
I would not call a circular movement an "oscilation"
Oscilation (as I understand it) is a movement between two points. That is not it. Is circular. Glad you like it. More footage today. Stay tuned. -->>>

let me guess bettie screen + circular vibrator from cell phone

of course.... try it!

Some updates:
ALL new footage is relevant. (most clips are 1M only)
(Premiere has artifacts @flip so I did not invert the image).
Some clips are 5sec. short HiRez and RELEVANT on many issues.
Relevant tests about GG brightness and vigneting (hence size left avail for a pic/video)
Same site:
www.dandiaconu.com
Thanks for stopping by.

PS. Leave a comment if you like what you see or if it helps you in any way....

dan, are you going to be selling these adapters? Do they fit most cameras? I have a dvx-100; will it fit mine?

Yes.
I finished all I had to test abut it. Next week I will try it out on real cameras DVX, PD, FX1 and post pics/clips on my site.
(XL as soon as I will get the mount; ultra compact ;-)<

awesome, i have 2 55m 10+ macros and 1 55mm 4+ condenser thats doing nothing but collecting dust. Will they fit on yur adapter?

With a 55 down to 49 yes.

Dan,
When do you think you'll be ready to sell these adaptors?

How much will you be selling the units for?

Will you offer a choice of 35mm lens mounts?

What else apart from the 35mm lens do you need to make your adaptor usable? are the required macro/diopters built in or are the externally mounted to the camera?

Thanks.

In two weeks time I might have the first 6 ready.(some parts just got shipped to me Friday)
Price.... I will have to see how well it performs with a "popular" camera: Pd, DVX, etc and also how much "pain" one must take to see "the light"
I am talking CU and macro and/or rings....
When I'll know, you will know.

However, if one buys something like this, best choice in lens might be best option. Nikon (for now). I know there are other great lenses out there, but.. just for now.
There is nothing built in. Each camera has its own lens and might need a dif. set of macro/spacers/rings and such.
I will post pics/clips as I take them.

Thank you.

yeah it might be interesting to see if there is any vignetting with your adapter because of the step down

I am going to do a film transfer from FX1 footage and would like to know your comments, regarding using your adaptor with 35mm lenses.
When will you be able to test your converter with the FX1?.

dan,

1 question: since now i have had 5 differnet mobile phones, and everyone of them after 6-7 months have started to vibrate weaker, have you tried out the performance of the vibrating motors?

All batteries lose power with time (car, cell, camcorder, etc). Try the 7 months "old" phone with a brand new fully charged battery and see if it makes a dif;-)<
As for this device, it will happen too. It will not "lose power" it will only last less on each charge (? one day instead of 4-5 days??? in three- five years time?????)
I have no idea. Then the batteries will have to be replaced. It depends how many times you will charge/discharge them and how often. What I can tell is that a few days ago (after shooting in the canyon) I found it working when I opened the case that night (some ?4?5? hours later...?)
I must have turned it ON when I closed the case (the lead)
I did not build the charger and charge them yet. But it keeps going (and no, it is not energizer)

Dan, any chance you could shoot a res chart with and without the adapter on?

I will have to do it at one point in time or another, although is not a concern to me. But I'll do it.

I've got a short clip to share and get FB/comments;
13 takes, all using the adapter, 50 and 135mm (@1.4 and 2.8) one take (about two seconds in the clip) static GG and photographed upside down (so I can see the dif and if Premiere introduces artifacts) and obviously 13 sound track to sink %$#@&^>>............ and none played at the same speed (well... almost... but enough to keep me busy 4 a while)

http://rapidshare.de/files-en/547152/michael_two.wmv.html

The link worked 4 me once. I would appreciate constructive criticism (I know I should fix the tripod......)

Just watched the clip Dan. Everything looked clean and no hotspot to speak of. How did you end up solving the hotspot problem?

I use a Fresnell focusing screen. See the dif that it makes here:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/Brightnes-tests