THE IDEA

I was thinking about 35mm adapters and it occured to me that there is a simple commercial device that already does what is needed. I had one of these laying around so I thought I would try it.

End result: It works nicely. It cost me nothing. And it would cost anyone about $20 to make from scratch.


THE DEVICE

What I am talking about is a slide viewer. Its a "small" device where you insert a 35mm slide into de device and you can see the projected image on a large lens on the other end. It is designed to take a 35mm wide transparency which gets illuminated from behind and show it evenly lit over a large end lens. Sounds very convenient, doesn't it? :)

The one I have is old so it still has decent quality crystal lenses (not plastic).

What I did was cut a circular hole on the back to that I could mount a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens, then made a simple screen that slides where the 35mm slide goes. The Nikon lens is mounted such that its focal plane is right where the screen-slide is positioned.

The optics are already placed at the right distance to show the full image on the large lens on the other side. This large projection allows the DV camera (in my case a GL2) to focus easily.

I have done some tests and the illumination is really uniform and my only two complaints with the device are static grain (obviously) and the bulk of the device.


THE SCREEN

My screen is pretty good I believe, it has very little grain (although it can still be apparent) and it has great light transmission. Best of all it can be made in 5 minutes with readily avalible materials (well, it may depend on geography).

I will reveal my screen method after I post some result images. (But you have to promise not to laugh at what my screen is made out of :)


THE OPTICAL SETUP

Now, the viewer device uses 2 Plano Convex lenses. The first one is placed at a distance from the screen (not close to it as other designs have suggested), and the other PCX seems just to serve as a magnifying glass.

The setup is like this:

NIKON || |) |) DVCam

There is quite some space between each optical element, and the lenses are large and rectangular. The final lens (the one close to the DV cam) is about 6 inches wide.


THE QUESTIONS

What I would like to ask is, if this design has any virtue over the typical
|||) () setup, where the first lens is close to the screen. Or should I go into the usual setup?

Also, what would you recommend in order to convert this setup into a compact design?

I will post some images of the results shortly.

Here are some sample shots:

http://mentemagica.com/AdapterTest9.jpg
http://mentemagica.com/AdapterTest12a.jpg
http://mentemagica.com/AdapterTest12.jpg

Keep in mind I build this thing just for fun and because it was so easy.

http://mentemagica.com/Adapter1.jpg

Nicely converted! I dont see any vignetting or colour seperation. Well done!

I haven't exactyl understood how the device looks like, would you mind ´sharing some more pics? I did try a similar setup with a slide viewer with a built in lamp, but it didn't give me any good results.

What is your emulsion (GG)? How does it look when you pan?

This is probably the device he's refering to: A Halina Viewer

http://www.danbbs.dk/~mikael/search/halina.htm

I don't know what gg he is using.

What a great idea....everything's in place already! Just add GG.

It looks wonderful. A microwax glass would get rid of most of that grain.

<<But you have to promise not to laugh at what my screen is made out of >>

Hmm...did you accidentally spoil milk in the adapter..right onto one of the lenses? No...did you blow a bubble of chewing gum inside the adapter?
(if so, you're pretty close to a microwax screen. Bubblegum is made of microwax...really)

Best of all it can be made in 5 minutes with readily avalible materials (well, it may depend on geography).

I will reveal my screen method after I post some result images. (But you have to promise not to laugh at what my screen is made out of :)

You have to tell us! This is driving me crazy... I promise you no one will laugh.

THE SCREEN

When I was thinking about what to use as screen, I had multiple ideas but all of them seemed like too much work for the quick test I wanted to do.

So what materials could be diffusive enough to work for this purpose? Well, first of all not all whitish semi-transparent materials are diffusive. Most of them absorb lots of light and that's it. What I was looking for is something whose microscopic structure would act as a bunch of prisms that redirect light randomly but would not absorb it. This is how a ground glass or microcrystaline wax work.

I thought that some polymers could be structured in such a way as to observe diffusion properties, in particular polyethylene. But where do you find a polyethylene piece whose polymer strands are aligned so as to produce diffusion?

It turns out that there is a thin-film polethylene material that is highly diffusive and can be found easily. In some supermarkets it is used for wrapping food (sliced ham, turkey, etc.) and also it can be found in some sandwich plastic bags.


RECOGNIZING THE MATERIAL

This type of plastic is very thin, and it is completely non-shiny. It makes a noise when you crumple it, and it creases easily when you do. If you place it flat on top of a printed page it is totally transparent.

http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/Screen-Flat.jpg

But if you raise it above the page just 1 inch, you will not be able to see the text below it. That's how diffussive this material is.

http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/Screen-Halfcm.jpg
http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/Screen-2cm.jpg

In contrast, non-aligned polyethylene plastic can be semitransparent but not diffusive. When on top of a printed page it will not become more transparent, and even if you raise it several inches above the print, you will still be able to see the text clearly.

So you have an idea of what you are looking for, it is a form of the same material found on 3M's Magic Tape, or Invisible tape. This is the non-shiny whiteish type of tape.


GRAIN GRADES

So far I have found that this thin film comes in a variety of "grades" when it comes to grain. The finer structure ones I have obtained from the sanwich bags, but your local products will vary. As with ground glass, the coarser the grain the more light goes through. But not that much more.


CONSTRUCTION

What I did to construct my screen was a simple procedure of selecting an area, stretching it and then gluing it to a frame.

First, cut a frame of your desired size on some sturdy material such a cardboard, metal sheet, or plastic. Then, select a piece of thin film that has no defects in the forms of scratches or creases (some creasing is acceptable since we will stretch it). The material you select must be much larger than the size of your frame. Lay the film flat on a piece of glass and stretch it using tape from all sides. Take the frame and either add glue to one side or double-stick tape. Place the frame on top of the stretched film and press all sides, making sure you don't touch the inside of the film as it is very delicate. Finally cut around the frame and you should have a usable screen.

To make a more durable screen, replace the frame with a piece of glass, and then use another similar piece on the other side such that the film is sandwiched (and thus protected) between the two glass pieces.


ADVANTAGES

I have found, that while the grain grade I am using still is a bit visible, the light transmission of this material is just unbelievable. It is so thin that it does not show any softening of the image, and lets most of the light through.

I will keep in the search for a finer grade before I turn my attention to wax based screens.


OTHER APPROACHES

While thinking about the screen and discussing it with some friends, a potentially useful idea came about: Liquid. A colloidal suspension could act as a great diffuser, and because of it being colloidal, the suspended mollecules will not sink to the bottom. Also, the grain can be as fine as a single molecule, and even if it is not, the brownian motion of the mollecules should ensure a grainless appearance.

I have not experimented with liquid suspensions but I may just give it a try and wanted to inspire others as well.

Please let us know if you find a finer grain grade polymer.

Enjoy!

Alain,

Im impressed with your diffuser material. Love the test with the book and text.

Would like to see some frame grabs though.

About this colloidal liquid diffuser idea, sounds very interesting, would love to know more.

Nice work. It's always nice to see someone try something new and in a different direction. Don't worry, Alain- if anyone laughs, Chris will put his/her head up on a stake next to Shannon Rawls'.

My question is, if you crumple the material in the forest and no-one is there to hear it crumple, does it make a sound?

You might even try the intenscreen that Oscar just bought and that Dan has always been raving about. It should really brighten up the footage without the fuss.

It does seem there are better solutions appearing then actual glass. I have found a pre ground/frosted material that seems to have a better diffussion to light loss ratio that im thinking of using in the SG35, as the tests appear superior!

Thank you for your comments.

I don't think I will spend lots of money on a screen (intenscreen or any other) just yet, instead I would like to get better optics first, once I decide if this setup is the best one. The current thin film I use has so little light loss that I would be very surprised if even the commercial ones are better in this respect. Then again, I would like to get rid of the grain :)

Here are some more pictures:

http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/AdapterTest20.jpg
http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/AdapterTest20a.jpg
http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/AdapterTest20b.jpg
http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/AdapterTest22.jpg
http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/AdapterTest22a.jpg

PS. Bill, no it does not make a sound, but still makes a good screen.

Looking good, Alain.

What about acrylic for a gg? Not sure if it is diffusable or how thick it would have to be.

A surface mount pager motor on your screen frame mounted in rubber bushings...and you're set.

I think that the paper bags i use to buy with ham at the local grocery store has this typ of plastic at the front, so you could see the ham. I'll check that out later today. Getting a $2 very good ground glass sounds too good to be true. Actually it's free if you eat the ham...

In theory, few things could be better than a Beattie, in reality a Beattie gives very grainy images in som light conditions. Scratching a beattie isn't fun either, I've tried... :)

As stated, I'll try to get some time to check that out later today.

in reality a Beattie gives very grainy images in som light conditions.

not if it's moving :) Actually now that you've shown us this I really want to try out this material. In terms of the Letus, this material would be lighter than glass and therefore would let the GG plate vibrate more. I'm itching to try this out--are these like the plastic bags that you put fruit or veggies in at the grocery store? In which case I know what material you're referring to...goodness I hope I don't have to ask one of you to mail me a sample of a plastic bag or something pathetic like that...:)

Can you post a pic of this bag your talking about. Oh and I found that Folgers Coffee Can Tops work pretty good aswell.

I think that covering all the surface of a fake CD with some streeps of 3M Magic Tape should be a very good and easy solution for a rotating GG. Same thing for a vibrating one.

3M tape? It would have to be a wider thickness I am thinking. Sandwich bags? I have tried the PressNSeal and it works great, but I think you are working with something else, right?

Yes, Alain is working on a static adapter, and me too, for the moment.

The idea of the 3M Magic Tape on a CD comes to me yesterday when I try to put some of this tape on an UV filter to replace the GG and test trasparency and grain. If you dont consider the dust and the size of the tape, that dosnt cover the 24x36mm area, the results was pretty good.
If you do the same on a moving GG the junctions of the various streeps should be invisible and the grain too. This is just a theory, of course, I've not yet an experience on moving GG.
Is there anybody that can try it ?

Alain, please can you say how are you going to fix the adapter to the camcorder ?

Hey Leo can you post some footage or pics with press n seal. I am currently rendering some footage with a Folgers Coffee can top and another sample with a regular white plastic grocery bag. Yes the bags they give you your groceries in. I Think if you get a bag that has no wrinkles it might work very well.

Will do. I haven't touched it in months since I got the Letus35. I will break it out and shoot some stuf with it to show tomorrow when it is light outside.
Alain, what is the widest you can get the 3M tape? I am going to try it in the Letus35 and see what happens!

Leo, I've just cheked, it seems 1".

http://www.3m.com/us/mfg_industrial/adhesives/framing/html/magic811.jhtml

Do you remove the glue off the tape to be able to use it without attracting dirt.

Also, I was looking around for material to rry out and noticed some plastic that was used to protect negative picture film. The only problem is that it isn't wide enough to be able to use it effectively. It almost looks like the frosty side of a grounded uv glass, except that I don't see any grain only the scratches that were on it. Amazing!

the footage I was talking about is at:

http://irezfilms.8m.com/1%20Mbps%20CableLg_Prog001.mov

the plastic bag was used inside, and the coffe can lid was used outside.

Link doesn't work! I tried using spaces instead %20 but without success.

Seems that several of you are already looking into the thin-film polymer material (sounds better than sandwich bag).

Here are a few guidelines:

-White bags absorb too much light in my opinion. Check my test earlier on this thread, you can see that the screen is pretty much invisible when right against a printed page.

-In general the thinner the material the less light loss you will get. Therefore, a coffe can lid or acrylic is too thick for our purposes. On the other hand, the plastic used to keep 35mm film negatives may just be a good one to try.

-Not all noisy, non-shiny, translucent grocery bags will work. Do the diffussion test as in my previous post. Be also prepared to find several different grain grades.

-You are not looking for a frosted type material, this one has absolutely no texture, and the "grain" is very difficult to see unless you look at your finger through the screen while pointing the material towards some ambient light source.

-3M magic/invisible tape is good but has too much striation (length wise texture lines). It also suffers from light loss because of it being too thick. You can remove the glue from it with some solvent, but then what's the point of using it? If someone can find magic tape at least 4.5 cm wide it may just work (there are more manufacturers other than 3M).

I am thinking about coming up with a way to quantify the grain grade of different materials so that we can compare them more easily. A lightloss test would be quite useful.

Alain, please can you say how are you going to fix the adapter to the camcorder ?

I already have it fixed via plywood. The adapter is screwed in and I made a hole to screw the camera via it's tripod screw mount.

As I said in the first post, it is bulky (not as bulky as the Halina viewer that was posted later, mine is much smaller). So I am trying to decide on my optical setup so I can buy some lenses and make a small one.

Alain,

I would like to hear more about this colloidal liquid diffuser idea, sounds very interesting, would love to know more!

Yea Im sorry, It wouldnt upload, I have too many projects on my server. My demo is almost 100mb, and my films are pretty big too. Im gonna make a smaller verion and post it soon.

the footage I was talking about is at:

http://irezfilms.8m.com/1%20Mbps%20CableLg_Prog001.mov

the plastic bag was used inside, and the coffe can lid was used outside.

here is the new link:

http://irezfilms.8m.com/irez35.mov

Neat stuff. Way to be innovative! I don't know whether it's the compression, the prime lens, the "GG," or the camcorder, but the footage has a nostalgic feel to it.

Keep it up!

Thanks Bill, I think it's actually a mixture of it all. I used a canon Xl1s at 1/75 shutter in frame mode, a Nikon 55mm 2.2, and a home made adapter. and the outside footage was treated with magic bullet. The Plastic Bag trick really blew my mind. All this time I've been trying to think of cool ways to make ground glass, when it was just bundles under my sink.

VIBRATOR

I am not quite sure how to use a vibrator and avoid the screen moving from the focus plane. I have never heard of a surface mount vibrator, the ones I have seen are cylindrical shape micromotors.

Since the vibrator has a rotating weight, its axis would have to be placed perpendicular to the projection screen such that the oscillatory movement of the motor is in the same plane as the screen. But that makes for an awkward placement. If anyone has some diagrams, I would be very grateful.


LIQUID COLLOID

Wayne, I am not sure what more information you want about colloidal suspensions. Basically these are a type of solution of a given substance in a liquid, such that the substance is dissolved down to mollecular level particles which will repell each other and therefore will never settle to the bottom and remain evenly distributed in the liquid.

Milk is a colloid, so is butter, and ink. The trick is to find the right substance. I am also concerned with the Tyndall effect where light of different wavelengths is scattered differently in a colloid, but our screen is so thin that it may not have any problems of this kind.

The idea would be to take two sheets of glass, space them very thinly (just as with wax adapters) and feed in the liquid colloid into the capillar spacing. Of course the glass container needs to be sealed on the sides.

As I said I have not experimented with this but it sounds good in theory.

Alain,

Thanks sounds very interesting!

Here is a link to Quyen Le's tutorial on a vibrating setup: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=48267&highlight=cheap+vibrating

Maybe of help...

I had a go at a whole bunch of different household products between clear microscope slides. - Nice images but the groundglass texture almost immediately began to grow clear spots which became larger and larger.

According to our local pharmacist, the squeezing of emulsions between two close surfaces causes the water and oils to separate, a process called "cracking".

If somebody arrives at a solution it will be a good one as the image was grain-free for several cosmetic products for a second or two.

I gave up on it early in the peace and went for moving glass.

Wayne, thank you. It sounds like I was right about the alignment of the vibrator unit. All the images on that thread are dead though, so I can only try to make some guesses from the text.

That being said, I did a simple vibration test yesterday and it works nicely. I used soft foam to attach the base of the vibrating plate to the bottom of the adapter and it worked fine. I did not use the protruding arm concept that was discussed in the thread, but may try it later.

Bob, if I understand what you are describing correctly I think I know what the problems might be:

-It is not the same thing to press a liquid between two sheets of glass than to have a fixed cavity. When you press a liquid between the glass sheets, the liquid will spread but when you release the pressure it will naturally contract due to the lack of pressure and form the clear spots you describe (if I understood you correctly).

-The liquid must be contained to avoid spreading.

So if you make a cavity of fixed volume and seal the liquid inside, I don't think you will see any of the "cracking" you describe. Just because the liquid has no place to go.

I can imagine a few ways to construct such a cavity but will post once I have actually tried them :)

Here are some questions for you who are more experienced with working with lenses...

The suggested setup on the threads I have read is to place a PCX lens right next to the screen to serve as a condenser, and then another lens to be used as a magnifier (macro). An achromat is suggested.

Nevertheless, the setup I currently have from the slide viewer seems to work well.

http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/Adapter1.jpg
http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/AdapterTop1.jpg

First is the Nikon lens, then the screen, then, a couple of inches away is a PCX, and a couple more inches away a second PCX (the large one on the black plastic area that is tilted back). The screen I am using is about 5 x 4 cm and holds the whole Nikon lens image. After the first PCX, the image is about 6cm wide, still, I cannot get my GL2 to focus even on an image this large. So the second PCX magnifies it even further so I can focus.

From this I am assuming that no matter what marvelous screen I use, I will always need a magnifier (macro) lens.

With the first PCX a few inches away from the screen I get an evenly lit image, but I noticed something, if I move the camcorder closer to the viewer (closer to the second pcx), the image gets darker and I start getting vignetting.

http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/FrameClose1.jpg

If I move the camcorder away, then the image gets lit better and the vignetting vanishes.

http://mentemagica.com/35mmAdapter/FrameAway1.jpg

The problem is that this makes my setup quite long.

(Note: These images are taken manually with a digital cam, not the GL2)

So my first question is: Should I adopt a different setup? Do you think I will get better results?

Second question: I want to buy better optics, should I get the highest magnification (smallest focal length) to reduce the length of the adapter or will that increase the aberration problems? Also, what about using an aspherical lens as a condenser? Will that work fine? (as I understand an aspherical will have less aberration problems).

Hi,
Regarding the vignetting, the behavior of moving the cam closer and further from the PCX is normal as there is a perspective shift while you do this. The bigger the camcorder lens the closer you can get with the same 'level' of vignetting.

To get your adapter shorter while keeping the image evenly lit, you will need a shorter focal length PCX (a little hard since you probably dont know the FL of the PCX in the slide viewer). Im guessing an 80 - 100mm FL PCX lens will serve you well with a GL2. Note that the shorter the FL of the PCX, the more chance of chomatic aberation and soft edge focus.

For the macro lens, try and find an achromatic lens for best quality

Hi,
To get your adapter shorter while keeping the image evenly lit, you will need a shorter focal length PCX (a little hard since you probably dont know the FL of the PCX in the slide viewer). Im guessing an 80 - 100mm FL PCX lens will serve you well with a GL2. Note that the shorter the FL of the PCX, the more chance of chomatic aberation and soft edge focus.

For the macro lens, try and find an achromatic lens for best quality

The first PCX has a focal length of about 100mm from my tests (this is 3.5x magnification). So I think I may need something shorter. I think I will try one of the Optosigma aspherical lenses as condenser (they have one with about 7.5x magnification).

The lenses from my slide viewer are suitable for testing but I want something better. Most of my light loss comes from them, they are very thick and the material is plain glass so they even look greenish when I put them on top of a white paper. I can't wait to test my screen with some more luminous lenses.

Another thing, when I pull the camcorder away from the second lens, the vignetting disappears but the more I pull back the more chromatic aberration I get. So it seems there is a trade off:

Longer adapter = No vigneting + some aberration
Shorter adapter = Some vignetting + no aberration

Even fixing the aberration through the use of an achromatic pair or triplet, will not solve the vignetting issue. So the first lens (the condenser) seems to be of extreme importance.

i tried the bag idea last nite. Its the plastic see thru bags for vegetables not the white plastic right? anyways.. that stuff had almost no light loss compared to prior materials ive tried. my kitchen at nite was amazing looking

for a liquid.. what about clear fingernail polish? i havent tried it.. because i dont have any...

Fingernail polish sounds interesting...hope somebody tries it.

for a liquid.. what about clear fingernail polish? i havent tried it.. because i dont have any...

Then how do you keep the paint on your nails from chipping? I have to use two coats!

:)






10 character minimum

i went through all of my gf's stuff.. she only has coloured stuff.. does anyone know if a couple even coats might work at all?

Hey guys I tried a bag that Ben had talked about using, and I was amazed by the result. I have to thank Alain for even coming up with the bag idea it was genius. check out the first test with a home depot screw bag at

http://irezfilms.8m.com/BAGTRY.mov

I have closed all my previous video samples