Ok, I,m sorry link is correct here Adaptest - 2006 (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/adaptest.htm)

- Toenis, thanks, Its a plastic spinning Cd

- Luis, ok I'll reupload that, thanx

Arisentirci!

Done, Luis the old videos are now available in the links below.

Test_0034.mov (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/test_0034.mov)
Test_0035.mov (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/test_0035.mov)
Test_0036.mov (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/test_0036.mov)

Saludos

Your footage is some of the sharpest and cleanest I have ever seen! I would love to see the rig you are using?

Also, your Artsmell website does not seem to be working...

I agree with David. Perfect job Ettore! Is it possible, that you write some details about your adapter or post some photos?

How did you make your ground glass? With Sillicone Carbide? What number? Thanks a lot.

Ettore, outstanding! How big image plane You are using?

Thank u all guys!
:)

Your footage is some of the sharpest and cleanest I have ever seen! I would love to see the rig you are using?...

Here's is some photos of my adapter:
Adap_Pictures (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/Adapter/Adapter_photos.htm)

Now, I would like to show you another example, this time larger (450x360) with a tripod.
Test_0038 (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/adaptest_larger.htm)

Direct link to the file (QuickTime 6):Save it (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/larger.mov)

Ciao!

Ettore, that is the best footage from a DIY adapter I have ever seen. I mean in my eyes the G35 is the best around. Period. But your footage has just beaten it.

I think all you guys out there who are making adapters(sgpro, brevis etc, )takes some notes and tips so you can deliver us a picture quality of this magnitude!

Well done. I'd even buy one from you Ettore.

Whoa, that`s sharp from edge to edge.
It`s a good thing when adaptor like this is not universal but dedicated to one camera model.

I wonder if there`s some sharpening applied in post?

Regs,
T

Ettore, am i understanding right from your images, that you are using +7 achromat and +10 macro simultaneously?

2 questions. 1). Why no more Nivea? I thought it was a big part of your design. 2). You put "Sandblasted ?" Did you just put a 320 grit sand paper and sand it down yourself?

-Rh

I agree on the footage, sharp with excellent colours. I wish I could find a projector like that here in North America because those must be great lenses? Mine look like that, but your shots don't have barrelling or fuzziness around the edges that mine do...


Anyone find projector like Ettore found? It must be a good one with the right lenses.

Ettore :
How are you holding the achromat in place? Also, what is the spacing like for the PCX - it is hard to tell from the photo...?

Ettore, outstanding! How big image plane You are using?
Frank, thank you, I don't know, just zoom on the gg image trying to avoid the vignetting.

Ettore, that is the best footage from a DIY adapter I have ever seen. I mean in my eyes the G35 is the best around. Period. But your footage has just beaten it.
I think all you guys out there who are making adapters(sgpro, brevis etc, )takes some notes and tips so you can deliver us a picture quality of this magnitude!
Well done. I'd even buy one from you Ettore.
Yasser, lol, thank you! but I don't want to sell these things, all I know
about these dof machines I learned here.
I use this (http://www.jackscamera.com/ebay/0811.jpg) $ 50 SLR lens and
$ 20 achromat from this italianEBAY SELLER ( http://stores.ebay.it/COMA-Costruzioni-Ottiche-Meccaniche)
He does whatever you want, you can send him a email and ask what focal what dia you need etc.
"Objective diameter 51mm Focal 180mm, with optimal mc treatment..."

...I wonder if there`s some sharpening applied in post?...
Sure! I said about the editing in my first message, but just a little, normal image enhancement.
gain, curves, gamma and sharpen. But I can assert to you that the Dv footages are pretty good,
clear almost as normal shoots, its not a heavy 'make up', the informations must be there in the
files, you couldn't do much in post if they're not.

Ettore, am i understanding right from your images, that you are using +7 achromat and +10 macro simultaneously?
Yes, my Canon XM2 can't focus well without a strong close-up optical assemblage, maybe i need a single acromat
with a stronger focal lenght.

2 questions. 1). Why no more Nivea? I thought it was a big part of your design. 2). You put "Sandblasted ?" Did you just put a 320 grit sand paper and sand it down yourself?
1-as you can see on my new footages the cream doesn't changes the image quality, you can do the same with a 320 grit sandpaper.

2- no, sorry, my english is so... :), sandpaper and my only hands.
i don't know where you are from, i don't know if there is a grit standard for each country, here in Italy 320 is fine and you must work over the gg very well, patiently, when you think it's good, it's not! continue...wash it evenly and continue.

I agree on the footage, sharp with excellent colours. I wish I could find a projector like that here in North America because those must be great lenses? Mine look like that, but your shots don't have barrelling or fuzziness around the edges that mine do...
Anyone find projector like Ettore found? It must be a good one with the right lenses.
Ettore : How are you holding the achromat in place? Also, what is the spacing like for the PCX - it is hard to tell from the photo...?
David, now i'm using that achromatic lens i bought on Ebay for about $ 20 (see links above), it's good, no chroma aberration, as i said up there the seller is a very kind person and he does whatever you want with good prices by email.


Please take a look, is the same adapter, smaller, made inside a pvc round box, here are the Pics (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/Adapics/index.html)
and this is a Video testing it (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/adap/adap3.html)

regards

Ettore, from the pictures I see a wire going from your XM2 to the adapter...seems like from the flash/hotshoe to the adapter...what is that? power? Yet I see a battery pack...

Wow, that footage looked great!

Ok, I know, for me it's just a joke....i like to shoot my sons growing up,
i think most of us here like to share results, no matter if happens with a comercial or a home made device, like mine.

I'll delet from my server all that videos linked above and put them togheter in THIS (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/vid/dof.html) page,
in .flv format, more easy to update with a video playlist.
Take a look, there's some new little clips.

Thank you guys!

Ettore, your adapter is simply amazing. I agree with Yas, it is head to head with the best (IMHO the G35). I sent you an e-mail with some questions about it. I would really appreciate if you could get back to me.

I went to check out the original manufacturer's website (www.wdr35.com) and I downloaded all the videos, but none held a candle compared to what Ettore's alternated version showed us here. Ettore, YOU should be working with the manufactures! Your results (along with the G35's) are the best I've seen in many years. I think all the pro adapter manufacturers out there should take at look at Ettore's footage and get cracking.

the metal part you used to hold the gg to the motor ??

what is it called? ( i see you have writen it in your language but i couldn't figure it out)

You have some great shots. Especially the one with the grapes i liked it most.

have a nice day
Hurcan

Hurcan, its a Prop Adapter ( http://www2.gpmd.com/image/g/gpmq4600.jpg), used by hobbists, on little eletric airplanes.
some links:
http://www.hobby-lobby.com/propadap.htm
http://1301774.estore.networksolutionsdesign.com/Detail.bok?no=82

Thank you guys, believe me, the Wdr35 adapter its a really good device,
and i must say you that the achromatic they're using is better than mine.
the GG treatment is the same, with the same grint paper.

Maybe my results comes with more accurate editing, gama, gain, curves, sharpen...
maybe when shooting with my XM2 i take care about good manually shots, my
opinion is that, little bit underexposed to achieve better colors saturations and
flexibility when you have to edit, is important not to burn highlight areas (imho)

The material is all linked up in the last posts, economic lenses, plastic disc, sandpaper number
1/4'' 3CCD camera, no secrets... :)

As you can see
there's no absolutly any chroma aberration and the footages are really lightly and that is a pretty good start!

Ok, i'll post some footage without any kind of editing.
:D

Update! (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/vid/dof.html)
The first footage named "Raw Clip", just increase the luminance (was too dark) and
flipped the frame... you can notice some vignetting, the color are original as well as the sharpeness.

Thanks

I keep going round and round and I always come back to the same. The original adapter's footage is not half as good as Ettore's and it costs as much as the M2 and the Brevis. If they followed your method it would be a best seller FOR SURE. You should really talk to them. I've spent years looking into 35mm adapters (and a lot of money) and I can't get over how good this footage looks. It's really a shame to deprive the world of such a magestic tool. Please Ettore, talk to them. Show them your work and tell them what you did to your adapter. All the 35mm adapter enthusiasts are counting on you to lead us from the blurry shadows into the razor blade sharpness.

Ettore, your footage looks really great !

Ettore, I mentioned your adapter at the dvxuser forum and a huge debate presented it self. I-m promoting the adapter big time. The guys who make it should send me one for free ;D

Ahahaha, gracias Lopes!

By the way, the guy that told about "no blacks" on the footages, i think he's right, but this is about my Canon XM2 and the post treatment i gave to the clips,
The point is: the adapter produces sharpen images? what about color abberrations?
distortion? light loss? the 'bokeh simulation', how is it?

These are the questions people have to do themselves when analizing a 35mm-adapter, cameras o CC doesnt matter, i have and old 1/4 ccd camera, my SLR lens is
a Yashica ML ( 50 $), acromatic (15 $) but my images are too close to the normal footages (without adapter), there's a little, but little difference between them.

He was right, i can notice "no blacks" watching the clips on my portable notebook, so my other upstairs desktop has a bad monitor calibration (i'll try to fix this).

No, I do not use cream anymore on the gg.
Yes, this is a homemade device, not for sale, not professional, no budget, just to share personal technical experiences.

Thank you

Ettore, your footage looks really great !
thank you, Ivan ;)

Hi Ettore,

_if possible_ please send one short original (no color correction and any post production) DV video sample ...or deinterlaced snapshots

thanks,
Robert

That is truly awsome footage, it's amazing how good a DIY adapter can look.

So Ettore, Well done - your pictures are beautiful - certainly the most vivid and clean adapter footage I have ever seen - miles ahead of everyone else. May I ask a question - in the end - is the main thing the 320 grit and the washing or the CD - what do you consider the most important element?

Many thanks

James

Really nice looking footage, could you give me an idea of what sort of color correction was done or is that look largely due to the adapter itself? between the amazing sharpness (maybe that is hard to judge with 450x360 clips), lack of chromatic aberration, and great color correction thats some of the best looking 35mm adapter footage ive seen. the footage looks a lot like film, maybe its desaturation or low contrast. Any details about your techniques would be greatly appreciated.

Yeah, the COMPLETE lack of chromatic aberration and light dispersion along edges is really impressive (I would love to see a couple of HiRes grabs - all the links at the head of this thread are regrettably gone) - any chance that you'd dig up some stills or higher res footage Ettore? Thx. J. Also where would I get a glass GG system?

Knight Optical in the UK apparently will make groundglass disks in plastic or glass. I got my raw 1.3mm thick already holed unfininshed optical glass disk blanks that I figured and polished myself from Ohara in Japan but have not since been able to re-order.

Thanks for the nfo.

Ettore -
I've been following this thread with much interest!
So when are you going to finish your long-awaited construction manual? :)
Please at least give us details as to the construction of the video lens end!
Achro doublet, what focal length?
How far's your +10 (or is it a +7?) set away from the lens? Or was this a part of the original adaptor you bought? And how are you setting focus and keeping it there? Gluing the elements in still working for you?
Thank you very much for your generosity!
Cheers
Chris

Thank you very much! i would like to answer all your questions but my english... :(
so please forgiveme, also i've had problem with my account (lost password, comunicate it to the forum moderators) for a few days, i'll try anyway...

I'm not a DigitalVideo expert, i'm not a master doying mechanical objects.
my hobby is telescopes, watching stars and things like that, from always in this activity we have much problems with
residual color error (secondary spectrum), sharpeness, distortions. Optical assemblages are part of our exhaustive discussions there.

My attention goes to the light and its behavior, every other technical considerations comes later ( lenses, alluminium, titanium and ivory)... they are just phisical supports and channels,
... my system (focusing screen and APO lenses) produces a image full of colors and contours 'cause the GG is almost
trasparent and the objective "translate" better the image.

But what about Bokeh? its there (its a illusion), but homogenius... no "soft focus..glow" effects around the blur areas even with such opacity level!

And the hotspot (light falloff)? this could not be a problem, every objectives, microscope, telecopes, every artificial light manipulation produces a round like that... got to find only the right piece of glass to put in front/back of it, not a drama. :)

How? the way it moves and the way i've designed the lines (surface inlaid relief ), when the disc spins
fast "organize" the light difusion ( remember when you watch a car wheel going fast and seems like its rolling back to the opposite side?)
i've tryied to exploit this optical illusion to give back better the inevitable compromise these 'loss light' systems work. i have no light
to waste more than the necessary.

Remember i have an old cheap Canon XM2 camera, wich start to give back to me strange color dominations, insistents greens etc...
I'm still using a very cheap Yashica ML Slr lens, i imagine how good it could be with a high ended sharpen objectives like Carl Zeiss Planar.

Ok, i'll be back...guys, if you interesed we working on a solid alluminium box with brushless micromotor (silent, fast and durable), polycarbonate treated GG and a really good self designed Barlow lens, apochromatic (apo) it produces high-contrast edges and brillant colors, correcting even better
light different wavelengths. The release will take a bit of time anyway, got to be optimal. You will be able to put it in front of every type camera, HD or SD, theorically this is not a problem to me, i produce one single image, don't matter what elletronic eyes you have.


As you ask me for:

Larger CLIP Test 480x368 (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/25.htm)
I've used some brightness , no sharpen filter, no curves, no saturations. what you get is what you see.

Issues:
Vignetting on the bottom of the screen (not alined well the whole thing inside the box )

Dust ( it was a test near my workshop, i was working on it)

Grain: all DV and QuickTime compression stuff, GG aereal image CANNOT have any visible interference like that.

No sound: brushed dc elletric micromotor produces a boring "buzz" effect.

Screen shots
Screenshot -1 (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/Image0.jpg)
Screenshot -2 (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/Image3.jpg)
Screenshot -3 (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/Image4.jpg)
Screenshot -4 (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/Image1.jpg)
Screenshot -5 (http://www.adrianoribeiro.com/videos/Image2.jpg)

Thank you all!

Any ETA on the first Batch?

Also, how come it is usable for any type of camera when different camera has different .mm thread?

This is an amazing thread guys!

I've been doing a LOT of research regarding the DIY adapters, and this is a very interesting case. I had a couple questions though...

I know this is a spinning solution, have you ever tried a static version? I know (or atleast i heard) the movietube using the microcrystalline wax sandwiched between two pieces of glass as a static solution, and due to the extremely fine crystals in that wax it provides a great diffuser and possibly very little grain? This is all conjecture, and i'm out of town at NAB and waiting to get home to tinker with it, but it seems to me the static solution would be ideal if you could find a substance that would diffuse the light well and not produce a ton of grain.

But i'm a tad discouraged because i've seen your amazing footage and i learned that it's a spinning solution and it makes me think that there's something i'm missing.

Any thoughts?

GREAT job here...

Dale

Unfortunately, the quest for a grain free or minimal grain static solution generally means you sacrifice good bokeh rendition (the look of the out of focus areas of the image).

I'm guessing this has been tried then? This makes me wonder then, how those guys at Movietube and JVC are doing it?

Any examples anyone can point me to where people have tried this technique?

Dale,

Microcrystalline wax is a good way to go for a static solution. It's not too fun to work with, but I think the process has been streamlined since I've tried it. Thickness of the wax is key. Too thin and you get hotspots, too thick and the image is too diffused/soft.

Here are some of my old test clips and frame grabs:
http://70.147.193.182:81/mwtest/

Sorry, next post...

Yeah, that's what i hear... i'm glad to know that there is hope for this type of solution...

To me it's worth the headache and time of coming up with the perfect thickness if that means a working static solution...

Anything you can point me to where people have been trying this recently with any luck? Thanks so much...

Dale

Oh and one more question - i've noticed when people do attempt to use a static GG, there are often condensors involved? Why is this necessary for the static method? It the rotating method it's usuall Lens > GG > Achromat > Camera - but it seems people are adding condensor (or replacing achromat), or sometimes sandwiching the GG between two condensors - why is this?

The use of a condenser is independant on weather you use static, vibrating or spinning GG.

The purpose of the condenser lens is to eliminate vignetting, which will be the same problem regardless of static or moving GG.

Interesting - thanks Wayne.

I looked at condensor lenses a bit - and it seems in most cases condensor lenses are used back to back causing the paralleling rays, then the focusing of rays - in this application would you need both or just one between the SLR lens and GG? It seems you'd just want one condensor in front to parallel the rays and eliminate the vignetting and throw the un-vignetted image from the SLR lens on the GG for the camera to pick up - is this correct?

Lens < Condensor < GG < Achromat < Camera?

One other question and it's probably dumb, but do achromats magnify the image? I know for instance on the Letus35 Flip his final image is 1.9x the actual size, and i'm not sure if that's due to the way it's flipping the image internally or the achromat...

Thanks

D

Dale,

Your idea of how the condenser works is correct; It basically distributes or "spreads" the light/image over the diffuser, whether it be static, virbrating, rotating, etc. as Wayne mentioned.

As far as using two of them, I'm not sure that it's necessary. I've gotten good results with only one, on the front. I've tried using two but didn't see a difference big enough to warrant using a second one.


Dale Backus: ... do achromats magnify the image?
Correct - they are used to magnify the diffused image so that the camera can pick it up. An achromat is used to prevent chromatic aberration / color fringing whereas a regular macro lens would possibly show these problems. (This occurs due to light wavelengths having different refractive indexes, causing the various colors to have different focal lengths. Achromats use more than one element to refocus them and keep them closer together. This usually shows up on the outer parts of the frame.)

Very good, thanks so much for your help with this...

I wasn't clear on one thing though - so the achromat magnifies the image so the camera can focus on it, and it eliminates the chromatic abberation. Does this mean that if i'm shooting with a 55mm Nikon lens, that it will appear as though i'm shooting with a 100mm lens or something similar? I know that's what the letus does, and i'm not sure if that's because of the achromat specifically, or something else inside involving the image flipping.

Dale

Good question, Dale.

In the case of a standard non-flip adapter, the lens' viewing angle, focal length, etc. aren't affected by the adapter, because the diffuser is basically just catching a projected image of whatever comes from the back of the lens.
So your 100 mm lens should look the same in your video camera as it does in your regular still camera.

Again, that's with the regular non-flips. I'm not totally sure what optics are in the flip versions to change that.

That's what you'd think - we were actually messing with our today and we found it very strange - we were basically trying to figure out why our magnifies the image...

Our adapter goes - Lens < GG < Macro (58mm) < Mirrors (to flip the image) < Achromat < Backfocus Lens (49mm f1.7 Minolta) < Body

For the heck of it we removed the Macro just to see what it did - and we couldn't tell a difference whatsoever - very strange.

We're thinking, because the image that falls on the GG fits the exact size of the GG, that it was positioned to the camera would only see a portion of the image to eliminate the ragged edges of the glued piece of GG - that's the best we can tell. (BTW, our adapter flips the image and adapts straight to the body of our HD100)

If we were to make our own, using a static microcrystalline GG - am i still correct in saying it should go: Lens < Condenser < GG < Achromat?
I'm guessing the Backfocus lens that's on ours is required because it's adapting straight to the body, right?

Dale

Oh Frank, thanks for pointing me to your old tests - i checked out as much as i could and i was very impressed at the lack of grain, how was your system set up? I noticed a little vignetting and hotspotting, were you using a condenser? Thanks

How does it come that the Redrock M2 spinning adapter does not use a condenser lens? I saw only that the spinning disc is thicker than normal gg's.

Daniel

Dale.

As far as I have been able to work out, your combination will yield an approximately 22mm - 24mm, maybe bigger, maybe smaller, patch imaged off the groundglass. A relay lens with a wider field of view, a shorter focal length, would give you more but then you might find the corners going dark.

There is a bit of a trade-off. Condensers enable a larger evenly lit area off the groundglass at expense of more complicated construction and adding one or two more pieces of glass into the path which might degrade the image.

Larger means potentially sharper images as the size of the individual groundglass texture pits relative to the image size is smaller. Your SLR lenses on front will yield a wider field-of-view.

If the centres are not right you might find chromatic abberation (rainbows) towards one edge or sharpness going off in a radial stretchy sort of way towards one edge.

The whole condenser thing is a bit of a dark art for me as I don't know the math and the theory and don't have a junk box of various lenses to try out.

The 1/3" width of your CCDs in your camera set the limit for the field of view for the relay lens you are using. You may find you can do without an achromat if you position your relay lens forward of its normal flange position.

If you eyematched through the camera viewfinder when you set yours up, this is what will have happened. In this position the effects of an achromat on front of your relay lens may be more subtle as to be not noticeable.

If the results on a definition chart are no worse without the acromat, I would be inclined to take it out as there is one less optical process to add flare and diminish the great contrast which is a signature of the JVC. The downside is your appliance may become longer.

To get a larger area off the groundglass, you might need a relay lens in the ballpark of 35mm to 40mm. These in wider apertures and of acceptable quality are not so easy or cheap to find.

The 35mm motion picture image frame is 24mm wide. If you want to be faithful to the motion picture film look, then this is as big an area off the groundglass as you need.

A simple test is to cut a 24mm x 18mm rectangle out of a piece of paper, place this in the path on your groundglass and see if you camera is picking up all of the image area. You may find you are shooting inside of it by about 2mm.

How does it come that the Redrock M2 spinning adapter does not use a condenser lens? I saw only that the spinning disc is thicker than normal gg's.

Daniel

The M2 does use a condenser lens, they place it between 35mm lens and GG. The condenser is actually fixed inside the lens mounts.