Dan, the clipped looked pretty good, but it's getting hard for me to evaluate WebCam resolution footage these days. :-)
You never responded to my concern about the image shifting laterally as the groundglass focusing screen moves. If you take any simple lens of any kind and form an image on a piece of paper, then move the lens sideways a little, the image on the paper moves as well. Perhaps you are only moving it a fraction of a millimeter, which doesn't blur the already blurry DV image? Your two megapixel image seem to be fairly sharp, however. Comments?

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : well...how about further comments on the sample clip? Obin? Les? Sarena? Frank? anyone? Still not good enough? Roughly 200 reader from post to post out of which only 23 have seen the clip. Are the others not interested? slow internet? If that is the case, what am I to expect...... But those that SAW the clip and do not care to share their impressions.......
oh well... you were right Steev. -->>>

Thanks Jeremie, the sound is from on board camera mic and does not concern me for the purpose. When I will shoot something "for real" and NEED the sound, I will use a boom operator or wireless lavaliere. Otherwise, this whole contraption is an imaging device. With the GG static (without the buzz)I heard (at playback) the lens movement and other noises that are not available when shooting just video. Please note that some camcorders have AUX mic and have configured the mic mount as far and isolated from the camera body (and their tape moving mechanism is pretty damn quiet (but still!) What do you expect when a fly fights a spider?.....
Les. When did the Web Cam came to play? I used the same GS200 as always. If that was a joke, then :-)<
>>>If you take any simple lens of any kind and form an image on a piece of paper, then move the lens sideways a little, the image on the paper moves as well.<<<<
True.
But my lenses do not move sideway (relative to camcorder). They only go in and out as I roll focus. I am not shaking the lens Les!
As for the screen, if I was to move it 5 or 10mm or 50mm sideways, or even rotate it as a spinning CD, the image from the lens will still appear in the very same spot, relative to the SLR lens AND the camcorder's lens, so..... how much the screen moves, round or elliptical is not relevant. As long as the movement is PLANE, and the camcorder points to the back of the lens at all times nothing changes (except you see a motion blur of the grain instead of individual grains) How is your device coming together anyway?

Dan,
Maybe I'm under the false impression that the focusing screen fresnel component is acting like a lens, specifically similar to a condenser lens. Isn't the type of focusing screen , you are using doing some kind of lens function? I didn't mean that you were moving the actual camera lens. Optically isn't the focusing screen like a condenser lens that is flat with a diffuser surface on one side? I guess that's the heart of the matter, optically speaking.
I'm joking when I say WebCam! I use the term loosely to describe WebCam resolution. (Regular SD resolution)

-Les

>>>Optically isn't the focusing screen like a condenser lens that is flat with a diffuser surface on one side?<<<
Yes, that what it is.
I am moving on to HD for that's where the money is. PD, DVX....... gs... good enough but.. times are changing and so must we.
The SD market does not pay/need this quality (beyond hobby level). HD pro summer will get jobs available only for today's pro cameras due to increased quality and shrinking budgets. No-budget-indie-work is fun but still no-budget. No point in pursuing it (imo)

Hey Dan, finally a full resolution clip! Very nice!

Thank you for the time you took to download it (must have been a pain) Glad you like it. More 2 come (in HD where available, hehehe..;-)<

Dan, care to offer any theories on why the apparent resolution is not reduced because of the condenser lens moving sideways?
You do agree that moving a condenser lens sideways moves the image it creates, correct? Theoretically blurring the image.
If we just don't know , and it works, so be it! But it's interesting to analyze in an armchair way!

-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : >>>Optically isn't the focusing screen like a condenser lens that is flat with a diffuser surface on one side?<<<
Yes, that what it is.
-->>>

Dan. You know i love your system.

It goes without saying ;)

Thank you Frankie. Me too, but wait and read.
(Les, I can not hold the whole class while you run from school after the first lessons to package the new "toy" and make it avail for less than $500. It would not be fair to them). The on-line manual is still there if you would only bother to learn:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album07/brightness_test_of_four_screens.wmv
(hmmm.....I must have heard that line before...)

New chapter (as if is not enough already!):

Scenario 1:
A person stands (fashion show? or whatever)
Wide angle lens, distance to actor 2-3ft. Lens (camera) is squared to his face, however we can also see the feet in the shot, all sharp (similar to door lens view)
Camera changes perspective (crane down) from his face to his belt and stops. In the frame, his head (top of the frame) and his feet(bottom) all sharp. All of a sudden, it all goes SOFT except his belt. Then:

a) He walks away/towards camera. Focus follows him (well, the belt) Nothing else is sharp
b) While static, focus rolls from belt to head, shoes and back to belt, while camera is leveled to his belt and does not pan nor tilt.

Scenario2:
Dog walks on the sidewalk. Camera is squared to dog, dolly-ing from the street.
Wide angle lens all sharp. Same thing happens:
a) Dog's head remains sharp, all the rest goes soft.
b) Dog stays sharp (head to tail) all the rest goes soft.

Wouldn't that be swell?...Horizontal or vertical roll of focus on the same plane... open a whole new field of possibilities? How many would use such “thing”? Well… if the feature is there and all you have to do is turn some knobs (or push some buttons), I bet ALL will turn them and explore. One’s imagination is his own limit.
Hint. Something like this :
http://www.uscoles.com/phoot/pcstrtl.jpg
would not do. Medium and large format photography are the only ones (I know of) that mess with the focal plane. Nothing (that I know of) in video/MP for obvious reasons.
It has been bugging me for the last two days, so I had to get it out.
You must have figured it out by now….

Dan,
I don't think you really know the answer to the question I'm asking. That's OK. As for the $500 toy, the only unknown part of manufacturing such a device is how to make the groundglass move without undesired motions in the wrong axis. I've already shown I can do that successfully.I'm just posing a question to those who are interested in the science behind why something works or doesn't work , optically. It makes no difference in manufacturing this device or not. It's not holding me up in any way. Building a new film scanner for my business is occupying most of my time these days. Your video only shows that the focusing screens include a built-in lens. fabulous.

-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : Thank you Frankie. Me too, but wait and read.
(Les, I can not hold the whole class while you run from school after the first lessons to package the new "toy" and make it avail for less than $500. It would not be fair to them). The on-line manual is still there if you would only bother to learn:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/albums/album07/brightness_test_of_four_screens.wmv
(hmmm.....I must have heard that line before...)
-->>>

Les,
With all due respect, I would rather email you instead of posting here all that. Let's talk. I do not have your email, but mine is there on the website. Email me.
There is no reference to your work other than a clip a while ago. Not enough to convince me.
>>>Dan,
I don't think you really know the answer to the question I'm asking<<<<
Nope. (I would prefer to refrain from being caustic again)
I have a lot to learn and I have since reading on this forums(not only technically but also to control my reactions and to refrain from posting under impulse!)
But in this very narrow field on which I have spent 9 (nine) months full time, I think I have a slight time advantage.
I did not withhold my findings, I made them public on my site free for all interested. End result? I can see it now.... (wrong move)
Oh well.... derz only one way to learn........

"A person stands (fashion show? or whatever)
Wide angle lens, distance to actor 2-3ft. Lens (camera) is squared to his face, however we can also see the feet in the shot, all sharp (similar to door lens view)
Camera changes perspective (crane down) from his face to his belt and stops. In the frame, his head (top of the frame) and his feet(bottom) all sharp. All of a sudden, it all goes SOFT except his belt. "





Wow. In a way that imitates the way we perceive/view the world. We see a picture and then decide to see the one thing we really want within that picture. In cinema we usually use a tighter shot to simulate that.

However with this system it's subtler in a way, thus a director can guide the audience to the right 'thing' within the frame. I think that's great and I’ve been thinking about it for some time.

Jane Campion (The Piano) made a movie called 'In The Cut'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199626/
In this movie she obviously used a compositor to blur out sections of the screen so that the audience could focus on what she thought was important.


We now have the 'why'. Have we got the 'do'??

Can you do this Dan?

You nailed it right on the head Frank.
Focus (aside from brightness) is where the attention/eyes go/es in every scene. The viewer seeks: bright, sharp and then composition (knowing or no)

>>>>In cinema we usually use a tighter shot to simulate that<<< via the long and beaten path of sooo desired narrow DOF of long lenses.

However, this time we are dealing with a "new animal" (mystic if you wish) that will DELIVER narrow DOF on WIDE lens (as well as other lenses). On top of that (as if is not enough already) will selectively show sharp only a vertical (or horizontal) strip of the frame, with all elements in the frame at the same distance from the camera. TA-DAAA.....

Let's first expand the first two "clichés":
This time we have a girl laying on a bed nude face up (nop, not an XXX movie, but a commercial to a skin lotion)
Camera on a dolly (wide format) tracks from knees(camera right) to head (camera left(left part of the frame))
HOWEVER: focus stays on the belly button/hand applying the lotion, tracking with the camera (in sink) from the very left side of the frame (where the hand enters frame and is the only thing sharp) and rolls in the frame from L to R till the end of the shot (when the head is camera left and BB/hand applying the lotion is SHARP camera right)
You have been shown "everything" but you only saw what you were supposed to see (although ALL was there all the time...) Perhaps not the best example of the overwhelming possibilities, but anyway a hint.

Yes, I can do it. How long to have it? dono. How much? dono. Worth it? you tell me.
I have some other cute ideas that would go with it and complement this works, but I have to chew them first (and if I don't chock, I'll make them public (as usual) Other comments? Interesting enough? Or back to... "drawing board"?

I'm not sure what you are talking about Dan. Can you elaborate? What type of device and what would it do? It's, of course, very hard to get shallow DOF with a wide lens so I'm not sure I'm following...

For all's sake read this page again. Start from the fourth post down.

Ok read through it again and I think I understand now.

You wouldn't be able to do the belt shot with this sort of setup though a tilt lens will certainly affect the areas in focus but to have area both above and below a certain point, all of which are in the same plane be out of focus while retaining focus in the center is not possible (not with a lens that is at least). This seems to be something more suited to post production IMO.

I give up

damn

What do you mean Dan?

Sorry guys, I'm not trying to be annoying or anything :(

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Something like this :
http://www.uscoles.com/phoot/pcstrtl.jpg
would NOT do.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I've seen this sort of thing done a synchronized iris/shutter pull. Exposure stays constant, but depth of field increases or dimishes. You need a good amount of light though.

Fair enough. Is the synchronization between aperture and shutter speed on MP cameras. Start with aperture 2 and shutter angle of..let's say 20 degrees and as the shot progresses, the aperture closes to 11 (or 16) while the shutter angle opens to 172 or 180 (to compensate the exposure).

But that is NOT what I was aiming at.

In very short:

Wide lens squared to a wall. Resolution chart is sharp in the whole frame.
Now, to obtain a STRIPE of sharp section in the frame (horizontal or vertical) anywhere in the frame (left, center, right or top/bottom) and be able to ROLL that stripe in the frame from left to right (or from top to bottom).
Subsequently, a whole sharp frame can turn to a stripe to guide and focus viewer's attention to a detail.
All this while the GG is dancing with wolves.

This is in very short what I was mumbling in the previous posts.
It must have been very confusing since I have introduced a dolly and movement in the shot.
It can be done. Worth it? you tell me.

Would be interesting...of course, with DI's becoming the norm, might be easier to work something like this in post. Been seeing plenty of ramp shots being effected by shooting all at 150 fps and pulling frames as needed (bit of a bone to those of us who have invested in a Preston F/X unit!)

I do not see use for it every day. By the contrary. But being there available might tempt and inspire some to use it.
I am positive it could be done in post, but I am playing my part in an attempt to save some work for production (I love editing, but spending 100 hours in post vs 1 in production to get the same result is what most producers ignore till the bill comes) Just a personal opinion.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : I do not see use for it every day. By the contrary. But being there available might tempt and inspire some to use it.
I am positive it could be done in post, but I am playing my part in an attempt to save some work for production (I love editing, but spending 100 hours in post vs 1 in production to get the same result is what most producers ignore till the bill comes) Just a personal opinion. -->>>

Maybe I'm a little better in post than you are because to me I'd much rather do that effect in post than on the set. It's an easy post effect to do and you'd have much more precise control... plus you could throw in subtle color corrections to match the mask etc. Render time isn't a big issue on type of thing. It's not rendering 3D objects or anything.

My advice is stick with the high quality shallow depth of field and focusing stuff. That's not easy to do in post (rotoscoping or blue screen) and A LOT of people want to use it all the time on every shoot. :-)

I think you should use your considerable ingenuity to figure out how to outsource the manufacturing so you don't need to make very much per unit because you're not spending ANY time making any units. In the end, that'll be a lot more profitable, IMHO. It may be the only way to make money on all the work you've done. You should be fishing or inventing new things while this one is being made, sold and shipped.

I do not know how "easy" is to do it in post. I know little about video editing. Also the rule says: get a clean shot, play with it in post at no risk so, I buy that.

As for outsourcing and such, I do not know the market size and how many potential customers would "see" the diff between existing products and what I have done. (I have both mini and Pro35 demo DVD's here) To get this thing out of my hair and do something else, would mean to sell the darn thing and let someone else make it happen since I do not believe in revenue based on percentage and agreements and such. So, for all the big or small fans out there, here is a ground floor opportunity. Figure out the market size, how many units could be sold at what price, talk to your rich relatives and email me if you have any good ideas. I am open and resourceful (follow focus, hothead etc)
As for fishing....been there once (when I was eight) and almost cut my veins. Patience is a VIRTUE....I do not have. *smile*

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu :
Also the rule says: get a clean shot, play with it in post at no risk so, I buy that.
-->>>

Forgetting this specific example for the moment, I think that's a "rule" whose time has come and gone. It's still a great guideline.

I think a better rule is use the best (or most cost effective) tool for the job.

Sometimes that means getting the shot in camera because doing it in post would be incredibly time consuming and other times it means not paying 40 people to wait around 4 hours to create something on the set that would take 1 guy 2 hours in post to do.

At least I think that's what the Robert Rodriguez's out there are doing. Jelly guns, miniatures and latex one second, 3D effects the next.

>>>>I think a better rule is use the best (or most cost effective) tool for the job<<<

I could not agree more with it.
But, you still need "da shoot" for post, right? So, while all 40 pips worked hard and the set up was done, out of 6-10 takes, one or two could be done "that way" at no additional expense... (same lights, moves, set-up, etc just another take...) in which the assistant rolls another knob than the focus knob. Cost effective? Just another option anyway...(or at least a hint for post as what the director may be after...)

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Diaconu : OK,...
200 readers from post to post, 14 downloads (less mine) and no comments. Does any of the 14 that saw the clip care to share impressions? -->>>

its been awhile since I checked progress on these adapters, glad to see theres been great improvement.

I realised about a while back that DV encoding and Bokeh dont really go together. In fact DV encoding is optimised for imagery with large DOF and has great difficulty handling the subtle gradients that are found within Bokeh. Rotating the image in post and recompressing with DV is double trouble.

I am referring to the grid of pixel block artifacts as soon as the Bokeh kicks in - which I can see at 3 metre from a 32" Wega widescreen TV.

I suspect better results will be obtained with a more suitable codec to handle the Bokeh uniformly.

A 35mm adapter on a DV camera is a waste imho. (unless you like the fishnet tights look)

maybe m2t will perform a lot better- uncompressed component certainly will

Thanks a lot John for bringing in the "magic word".

Although I have some samples on the site, is always inspiring to see other images.... just lovely....
Here are some of the results from goggle:

http://www.bokeh.de/en/

http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column49/

>>>In fact .......trouble<<<

I humbly disagree with some portrayed results as follows:

>>> DV encoding has great difficulty handling the subtle gradients that are found within Bokeh.<<<

Let us assume we do not deal with an image converter at all, but the camcorder itself, and we do not have many or any different objects in the frame but a blanket (pastel colors if need be) A good substitute for Bokeh (I would guess) According to your statement, we should see the artifacts all over this entire surface? I have seen as much as there is to see from hi rez static stills and footage both burned on a DVD on a 27" display and I am (surprisingly!!!!) happy with the results (unless I though I had my glasses and I did not!)

>>>Rotating the image in post and recompressing with DV is double trouble<<<
For me, (as I would prefer to continue use Premiere (and if need be Pro) yes. That is trouble. The program does not do the rotation of the image clean. However, I have done the same tests in Avid, and to my satisfaction (and bitterness I do not know it in depth) the rotated image was clean as a whistle. But I… flipped the camcorder, so.. the footage is up right (even for me as premiere boy)

>>>A 35mm adapter on a DV camera is a waste imho<<<

I have no opinion on this matter. I usually split the thread in many... way tooo many.... and seek spots on the sun.(with a 9mm ;-)<!!!

HD display is still in its infancy (market size) On most TV's the HD or DV originated material will not make a diff. (hold your horses there!) I am not blind (yet), I am talking resolution only. Color rendering better, yes, ability to hold highlights, yes, many other functions, yes. But the current TVs are not capable of showing all those 600, 700 and 900 lines of resolution from a film transfer, so why bother? Are they there anyway?
But (IMHO) all that is just as useless as 24P. (hold again)
Until the TV/display will be able to flash at my eyes 24 distinct pictures in one second, all that "fuss" to shoot 24P and end up with 60 fields anyway is nothing but a "sales gimmick" that (surprisingly) has passed, has been implemented and embraced. (shake head in disbelief)
I saw it all right (24P) on HD screen. The only (and nearest IMHO motion jitter) comes from older films sold on VHS in which 1234 are original frames and the 5th is fourth repeated.
I have I robot" on DVD. I played back the movie frame by frame. I was shocked to see 30 distinct frames (while shot on film with Panavision at 24fps) ...... ............
point being:
even material originated on film 24 fps (not 24P), when played back on TV from DVD shows 30 frames (soooo smooth like any video material) so why bother with all this nonsense (I can already hear the stake burning and the inquisition breaking my door to get me for heresy.......) but..... I'll say it again before I burn: e purr si muove....;-)<
(I am talking about GG not the earth which stands still and the sun goes around it...)

So, DV can deliver fantastic results in the right hands as well as HD could fail a less experienced shooter. Hd is not a "magic bullet" . However it is the future and the future is now. The image converter is optically ready for HD. (I still need some good glass to shoot a test though, damn!)

For a straight to DVD release, I think is just as good as the paying market it addresses.
(90% of the movies made these days are not worth the plastic support, but…hey,.... they sell. despite what I think… .aaaaargh… the inqui

"once you have seen The Devil's Grid, you are blighted for life"

I am referring to the grid of resolution 8x8 pixels, which imprints itself onto the footage (like a watermark) whenever Bokeh is around.

Try this, with a DV camcorder walk about the back garden with your camera out of focus (this is pure Bokeh). Then play the footage back on your TV straight out of the camcorder. It is more visible on a TV rather than a PC monitor for some reason

All I can say is that I can see the grid, maybe some cant but with practice you will, and then you will always know what to look for.

John,
There was a slight misunderstanding. What is playing back straight form a camcorder on TV got to do with what I have done? I do not have a garden, so I will skip this test, but I saw the FX full well. It is nothing but terrifying. But that is not the best out of mini DV. That is the reason I burned a DVD with footage straight from camcorder and also with the image converter. To SEE how good DV can be, and is OK.

Dan is it okay if I reveal how you plan on doing selective focus DOF for wide lenses or do you prefer to keep it secret because you might market it? It's scary but we think technically alike. Back in the day I tinkered with this exact technique and it works but decided it wasnt worth the effort. I'd love to see someone else follow thru with it though. In fact now that I think about it I know they have setups already for this these days but its designed for full sized motion picture cameras so yeah make one for DV.

While I'm on the subject of crazy ideas your focus assist device (very nice btw) reminds me of a 3D camera system I thought up. It would allow two cameras to either pigeon toe in with its relation ship with the focus of the lens. This would give a more accurate 3D effect because they would be working exactly like our own eyes do. Or I had a idea for a similar device and use it to create a special fx in 3D by having the two cameras pigeon toe AND/OR push in or away from each other to create a very strange 3D effect that hard to explain. Basically it appears as if the 3D effect has been exagerated and things can be stretched to pop out at the audience. This could be done at any time for dramatic reasons. Anyways its nice to see I'm not the only one thats crazy enough to tinker with this. Heres to being just a tad bit obsessed (or was it insane...I forget)

Charles-
I didnt know anyone had done the iris/shutter angle cross pull yet. I've been begging to find a script that called for it because I thought the two hadnt been used in this way yet but apparently it has. Oh well. I'd love to see the film you saw it done in.

As it happens, last night I saw the movie "the final cut" with Robin Williams. To my astonishment I saw the beginning credits with this very effect. I shook my head in disbelief. I'm "on the ball" but late? (or ahead? thinking life action?) It is true, it was not life action, but the point is the "idea" of having all the credits sharp and then going soft from one end to the other as going away from the screen......... This is the "collective consciousness" at work my friends. We all "tap in" the same pool of ideas at one point or another, but some are ahead (way ahead) and take a big credit (Leonardo, Tesla...)and others a bit behind. I have nothing but admiration, but is right? This is only the result of "high interest" in one field, focused attention and TIME available and devoted exclusively to a task. I see that every day at work here on this board and I saw it in other fields as well (computer cooling, hobbies etc) Oh well.....
Bottom line Brett, you do not have to "blow my cover", I can do that myself just as well (or better;-)< )....lol.....
Actually from the explicit shoots, is not that hard to figure that the focal plane would not be squared to the lens anymore but in an angle, having only a "slice" at the right distance from the lens with "ahead" and "behind" going soft. To achieve "that" "in take" is a bit more complicated. Easier said than done. Actually thinking of it, I can see EVERY ONE testing a static converter FIGHTING THIS VERY EFFECT to achieve the square ness of the GG.......
I did again some tests (this time aiming for it) and the "vision" was confirmed (no, the shaky was not there). Nice or no... a matter of taste. A lot of applications? Who knows? I actually have a shot like that (that may have triggered the late thought)done with the system I made last August and in which the screen (although plane movement) was not perfectly squared to the lens. Nice? Is relative but I could post the clip. All the time? No way. Is suffocating to seek sharp. Gentile swing in and out.... well.. that would be very nice but a lot of work...
The "squishy" lens of Clairmont was used on a movie (I do not know of the second) Once the effect is "done with" in one flick, one may not seem original to use it again....
One exception is time freeze (matrix) Is too nice to go away.....

>>>>>reminds me of a 3D camera system I thought up........<<<<
It is only common sense the thought you had.
I was shocked to "feel" how "disturbing is" to see the binoculars NOT going inwards as you change focus (same thing for about the same application) Again, precision mechanics to converge the lens all together maybe 2 degrees? No wonder they did not bother yet.
List is long and sooner or later (when they are done) we will all wonder what "took THEM so long to figure it out" for it only makes sense.....

Sane or insane... who is to define and then who to draw the line? Is there a line (or just a soft focus) or is it just me looking for my glasses.....

Hi Dan,

" is not that hard to figure that the focal plane would not be squared to the lens anymore but in an angle, having only a "slice" at the right distance from the lens with "ahead" and "behind" going soft"

Tried that! :) As you tilt the GG, it goes out of the focal plane of the 35mm lens but also outside the focal distance of the camcorder (I might confuse some terms here, but I hope you understant what I mean). The think is that one side of the image is more out of focus than the other... It must be something with the backfocus (the 355mm lens) or the focus of the camcorder... (I have a feeling that this could be use to properly adjust the backfocus and the camcorder focus - tilting the GG on an axis going throu the midle... - stupid idea, ha? :) ).
Anyway, tilt the GG (up/down) and then the camcorder (left/right) but framing the same rectangle. You will now have just a spot (not a "slice") in focus. :)

You can also tilt the GG both ways, of course... you should get that spot in focus...

Cosmin, thanks for taking it to the next level (both x & Y) but as you say, it would become a spot only IF that would be a static shoot.
But what IF we turn on X from Bokeh-sharp-Bokeh to sharp-all-over and then START the Y turn from where we were ;sharp-all-over to Bokeh-sharp-Bokeh on the vertical?
Further more, what if the inflexion was not centered (on any of the X or Y?) Or, like I said before focus on the lens rolls in sink with the tilting on any of the X or Y to maintain focus on one element as it changes position in the frame? Think "all that" was done in ONE CONTINUOUS SHOOT? Surprise? You pet ;-)< (should I stop writing the way I talk?)
But that would require no more than 6 tiny motors to move the "whole works" on 3 axes...
way to go Dan.... spend a year to do it right and another year to s....it-up.....way to go.. .

"what if the inflexion was not centered " Of course. I never thought it would be centered.. what would be the use for that?! (when I said it would be centered I talked about the "focus/backfocus check" stuff - I'm to lazy to think about it)

I can't see the use for 6motors. There are three axis but I can only fit 3 motors in there. Or two motors (for X & Y) and an linear actuator to move the GG back and forth. We're talking steppers+microcontrolers (or maybe brushless DCs with feedback...), software... "motion controled GG" :)

Good luck with that Dan! :)

>>>I can't see the use for 6motors.<<<<
You can't but I can (sink harder!)
>>>Good luck with that Dan<<<
good luck yourself cuz I aint gonna do it. I may seem cuckoo at times but I am not (is it not what they all say?....;-)< hehehe...

"good luck yourself cuz I aint gonna do it"

let me finish my drink...


:)

How do they do the OIS prism to move...?



(I'm cracking you down, ain't I? :) )

>>How do they do the OIS prism to move...?<<<<
how would I know?....... (i guess is de fly....)
(I'm cracking you down, ain't I? :) )<<<
you pet you do.......)))))
leave that aside..... I have the solution to focus ring gear for any lens..... (brand or diameter) had a dream three days ago but I had o finish it and make sure it works and now is anodized, packed and labeled good for shipping, (in my head of course) it'll come... (it does not look at all like the pics on my site though) hmmm... did I mention a new FF?

"I have the solution to focus ring gear for any lens"
you're talking about the FF, right? Not the gears on the lens. So the gears on the lens are different diameters and you can drive them all with one FF? Can I take a wild guess? :)

b my guest

:)

aaa... may I ask you: is there a "setting" or will it work right on? Nothing gets changed?

ok, ok, you caught me! I have no ideea! :)

ask the... spider.... ;-)<

Yeah Dan thats what I did. Just tilt the GG. Now you can also move it in and out to place that slice area that is in focus anywhere on the GG and not just in the middle. Anyways this goes back to the earliest years of photography up until today with the MF & LF bellows cameras. I believe you want to make one of these:

This is the one for full sized motion picture cameras
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/film/swing-shift/index.htm

Anyways its all cool stuff but rarely used and extremely time consuming to make. A rental item for sure. I see this effect in nearly every over dramatic drug commercial. (You see it too?)

Hey I can tell you one easy way to optically get only a center spot in focus on even a fish eye lens. > When you make one of these adapters make it possible to reposition the video cameras lens alot closer to the GG. Zoom out to wide angle on the video camera and reframe properly for a full frame view of the GG again. You'll notice that the DOF of the video cameras lens on the GG itself is SO shallow that only sections of the GG are in focus at any give time. Thats it. Pretty simple. The only minor problem with this idea is at fully wide on the video cameras lens your GG looks the slightest bit distorted (as all things do with wide lenses). However its no big deal because this subtle effect can be well hidden in the distortions present in the films wide angle lens itself anyways. Anyways hope that good enough for what you want to do and saves you from investing another 6 months of your life on a swing/tilt mini35. Hell you can take this project as far as you want to. Throw a anamorphic element in there as well or add a small rotateable gradual ND disk behind the lens mount to dial in the exact f/stop you want no matter what the lighting conditions. Or use it WITH the iris and do a iris/adjustable ND cross pull to have a incamera DOF change during a shot without having the negative effects of the shutter angle change. Toys toys toys. Its fun to think about the possibilities but the appeal of having a actual life keeps me from building all these specialty items. I'll have to at least check out that movie you mentioned though. It was used only on the opening titles?

There are some lenses (rare) made by Nikon and others that do that natively:
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hartblei.com/products/images/shift_lens/fullsize/TS-PC-45-S-R-(tilt-shift).jpg&imgrefurl=http://andybatt.blogspot.com/2004_06_14_andybatt_archive.html&h=600&w=642&sz=17&tbnid=a7d2NW5RV18J:&tbnh=126&tbnw=135&start=12&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtilt%2Blens%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official_s%26sa%3DG

But is not the same thing. Just about but not the same.
I guess one could combine focus roll (on the lens) with perspective CTRL (for the shots I imagined)
Not of interest here anyway...
>>>(You see it too?)<<< Sorry to confess here but it has been a good while since I watched TV. (a movie now and then is OK though)
>>>Throw a anamorphic element in there<<< I did! (Century) not very appealing. To de ana... you have to stretch the pixels on the horizontal.... rez loss just to fill a wider screen (way better than cropping top and bottom though)
Yes, opening titles only.
How did "Matthew" go?

Happy "Good Friday" guys. (I just had one of my prayers answered today)

Yeah that was a fun shoot - The story of the Last Supper. Believe it or not I actually had my camera bless on that shoot. Everyone -crew and cast came together on that one. I made some custom gear for that film that you might find interesting. I knew I wanted to make a lot of very small dolly moves but the shooting schedule didnt allow for the time it would require to reposition and setup track and dolly every 5 minutes so I built what is best discribed as a miniture dolly for the camera only that fit on a 5 foot long miniature track. These two items were light weight but sturdy enough to be attached to the TOP of a tripod. Sound strange, I know, but actualy it was very useful. It let me do a new dolly setups in as much time as it normally would take to walk a tripod across the set. The lighting setup was also very odd but I think I've talked off subject long enough. Email me if you want to chat. See ya

What the heck is this thing supposed to do exactly?

Move the GG in an angle in X,Y,Z as opposed to square only, relative to the SLR lens, thus allowing only a "slice" of sharp image for elements placed at the same distance to the lens (during a take that is) to be seen from a full sharp frame.