Sorry I couldn`t find anything regarding Sanyo`s new Xacti HD1 and DOF adapters...
... progressive scan HD, full manual exposure and MFD of 10mm I`m thinking that this little thing could make up quite nice SD capturing system for DOF adapters?

Not good at low light (f 3.5) but still better than most $800 MiniDV cams out there.

Xacti HD1 thread goes here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58228
200 pages user manual: http://www.gamersden.com/hd1test/Camera_GB.pdf

Why shouldn`t it be used with DOF adapters specially when downsampled to SD in post?

Welcome Toenis. You might try going through the threads in Alternative imaging, there are a few for HD models to get ideas, plus the latest thread on alternative screens etc for low light loss.

As I said in the thread, you could consider a straight tube with high quality condenser triplet (one designed to resolve red, green, and blue spectrum's, as some are calibrated to do IR or UV instead) and you should get much better low light performance.

I wish you success.

Wayne.

Any news on an adapter for the HD1, HD1a or HD2? I'd be real interested to see what come up.

f3.5 now, and much worse once you add a 35mm adapter in terms of light loss.

I think it's low light capabilities make it prohibative.

As far as I know an focusing screen is not needed to get the 35mm DOF, that an condenser lens can reproduce the DOF, at much brighter levels. Focus screens act like an ND filter combined with some washout (in more primitive screens) so you are goign to loose that effect. Now for an way that can squeeze F1.8 SLR lens down through they f3.5 aperture?

Wayne,
that's sort of true but technically very difficult. All of the sub $10,000 DOF adapters use some kind of focusing screen (Ground-glass, wax-screen, holofilter) to display the aerial image to be rephotographed. Condenser lenses are often used in these set ups to get more even illlumination edge-to-edge.

There is currently another thread going about building a purely optical solution, and just yesterday there was a long heated discussion on the cinematography.net site between some very heavy hitters about it's feasability/success.

There are two designs that I know of in the $20 G range. Angenieux & Zeiss lenses collaborated to release something called the CLA 35HD that allows you to mount many Cine lenses onto a 2/3" camera with only about a 1/2 stop light loss. (But it doesn't work with all of them--depending perhaps on the size of the exit pupil?) But it is by no means a simple condenser lens, utilizing maybe 11 elements. And Zacuto (or someone else--Zacuto is just a rental house) has recently built a DOF system using a different relay lens for each prime lens (with I'm guessing also very little light loss).

And everyone's speculating over JVC's announced cine lens adapter, and whether it's just a lens mount adapter or a true DOF adapter. But either way you'll need a 1/3" removable lens mount, which I'm guessing the Sanyo doesn't have.

Sorry to be a wet blanket. $800 for HD is awesome, and I didn't check the lux rating on the chip--maybe it's superfast, in which case the f3.5 doesn't matter. But otherwise to use a DOF adapter you'll generally have to throw a fair bit of light at your scenes, or only shoot it in daylight.

I guess you guys haven't seen the HD1 cine-version I designed and posted quite some time ago?

Dennis, that's hilarious! Let me know when you're taking orders.

hi all,

i tested the HD1+M2+Takumar 50mm F1.4 lens ...not bad in good lighting situations...
this sample videos little noisy (indoor) but like a film grain :)

no cc or any post production...
the SD conversion very good !

the rig :)

HD1 with matte box :)

Wow!

But I thought it didn't have filter threads though? How are you guys doing that?

Wow!

But I thought it didn't have filter threads though? How are you guys doing that?
http://www.amazon.com/Sanyo-VCP-AL49-Adapter-Xacti-Camcorder/dp/B000FSAS1S

Well how about that? =)

Can't wait to check out that HD2 when it comes out.

Dennis, that picture still makes me laugh ;)

Jack, maybe it depends on how much performance you want. I suspect you can get adequate results at much less resolution (and an triplet lens). Movie cameras mare very demanding. This is 720p 4:2:0, it would be interesting to see.

Never trust the opinion of people that "use" equipment, they might be right, as long as somebody else showed them, trust more the ones that are good at designing the equipment you are talking about. These people are of an much different mindset, and prone to be more accurate about what they know. This has been a problem around here in the early days, a lot of people didn't have the mindset of an engineer or an technical designer. It's exhausting, time consuming and hard.

Wait to see what happens, what they can achieve. Prices in the Cinema market should not be taken as an indication of possible price. Cinema markets are very small, so they are making a lot of premium money on small quantities, where as the DV market is market probably at least as big for each producer, and prone to lower pricing. Remember that the adaptors used to be massively expensive, and now we can do our own for a fraction of the price. So, it will be interesting to see what they can achieve.

I have just realised another modification they could make to the HD2, an low light mode that automatically switches to 1280*360 or 640*720, 640*480, and 320*240 binning at 9mb/s for better low light performance.

One of the things that 9mb/s can not handle is too much noise (and motion to well) I think it is preferable, most of the time, to have 640*480 or 320*480, then macro blocking. If they can set the switch in when noise from gain adversely effects encoding. They could also use something like that for areas of high speed movement, as long as the objects has clean lines it should not look very noticeable.

Dennis, that picture still makes me laugh ;)

Thanks. It's completely fake, done in Photoshop. :)

hi all,

i tested the HD1+M2+Takumar 50mm F1.4 lens ...not bad in good lighting situations...
this sample videos little noisy (indoor) but like a film grain :)

no cc or any post production...
the SD conversion very good !


Are you using the HD or SD package from Redrock?

Are you using the HD or SD package from Redrock?

i use the sd pack with 52mm achromat lens

two uncompressed mp4 video

http://rapidshare.com/files/14273242/Sany0565___.mp4
http://rapidshare.com/files/14272038/Sany0562___.mp4

Robert, how much light loss do you estimate you are getting?

Is this an GG like focus screen adaptor? Is it possible to remove the focusing screen in this adaptor and shoot some low light using the condenser (adjusted to whatever makes it focus) as an test to see what happens (not expecting much)?

The question ask before about the speed of the CCD in this camera, slow to very slow without lots of noise. The announcement of the new HD2 camera indicates an big improvement, I forget how much but it was an number of times, I posted a link in the HD2 thread.

Robert, how much light loss do you estimate you are getting?

Is this an GG like focus screen adaptor? Is it possible to remove the focusing screen in this adaptor and shoot some low light using the condenser (adjusted to whatever makes it focus) as an test to see what happens (not expecting much)?

The question ask before about the speed of the CCD in this camera, slow to very slow without lots of noise. The announcement of the new HD2 camera indicates an big improvement, I forget how much but it was an number of times, I posted a link in the HD2 thread.

Wayne,

The loss of light is about 1/2 to 1 stop.
and yes this GG (rotation) screen adapter

one more uncompressed (mp4) test video with Prost Tele 135mm f2.8 lens at f2.8
Sanyo HD1 setting: f3.5 , shutter 1/100, iso 50, wb sunlight
no cc or postproduction

http://rapidshare.com/files/15036342/Sany0651_walk.mp4

but sorry i dont no remove the M2 cinescreen (GG)...

:)
......

I picked up an Canon 8 video camera with automatic zoom F1.4 lens system for $5. It gave me a thought, such an lens could probably be made to work on an black screen lens HD1 (preferably out of warranty and unable to be repaired).

Canon Auto Zoom 814 Electronic (has extra rubber hood):
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/cine/data/1972_auto814.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/cine/data/1972_auto814_s.html

The target size of 8 is close to 1/2.5. An little is lost around the edges in still mode, 16:9 720p shooting should fit, and still might still fit in the circle of the lens image. Super 8 would be better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography
http://machinevision.navitar.com/pages/product_information/low_mag_video_lens/low_mag_optical_character.cfm?nav4=true

A very nice site I found for general photography information.
http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/digital_1.htm

The lens electronics could possibly be adapted to respond to the HD1.

The lens looks cool enough, Canon upmarket styling.

But then again security camera, and digital still camera lens, could also be used.

If somebody had a defunct Sanyo in Australia and would be interested in this, I could send the camera if they paid postage (the lens if I can get it off).

Back on track:

About the purely optical adaptor. The problem with converting an 35mm lens to an 1/2.5 inch target is that you increase the angle of light convergence and speed. Past an certain point, it will mar the image if an microlens array is present. If there is no microlens or other obstruction, as you increase speed, eventually the angle of convergence becomes so extreme that light bounces off the surface of the sensor chip.

Something in the 3/4 format website that I saw years ago, occurred to me. It is something I had planned on doing too.

They seem to be indicating that the lens system is designed to reduce/straighten out the angle of light hitting the sensor (immediate thought, are these lens very slow?). So that the lens has an system to make the light hit the sensor more direct on. If this is what is meant, such a system would allow the native DOF of the 35mm lens to be transfered through to the smaller sensor without excessive angles of convergence, with many sub f1.0 stops.

Does this sound credible (had three hours sleep the previous night)?