4:4:4 10bit single CMOS HD project - Page 29 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Alternative Imaging Methods
DV Info Net is the birthplace of all 35mm adapters.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 24th, 2004, 01:23 PM   #421
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western Oregon
Posts: 138
would a F-C mount adapter like this work?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30035&item=3822549795&rd=1
Eric Gorski is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 01:35 PM   #422
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Posts: 358
Quote:
Eric Gorski wrote:
would a F-C mount adapter like this work?
Yes, actually I'm planning to buy one of those pretty soon. It won't do me much good right now though; I have no F-mount lenses either.

I have a pretty nice (but slow) Canon EOS lens, but haven't seen any C-mount adapters for EOS. Nikon F-mount seems the way to go for using 35mm SLR lenses with a camera like this, especially if I can build a good GG (ground glass) adapter at some point.
Rob Scott is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 01:39 PM   #423
Silicon Imaging, Inc.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Troy, NY USA
Posts: 325
C mount adapters:
Yes they work fine. You will get a narrow FOV because the c mount sensor is smaller. Edmund has them for $65 and bhphotovideo lists one at $29.95 out of stock though.

General Brand
Price : $ 29.95
Shipping Cost >
C-Mount Adapter for Nikon Lens

Mfr # VA304 • B&H # GBCMN

Great way to have excellent optics cheaply.
__________________
Silicon Imaging, Inc.
We see the Light!
http://www.siliconimaging.com
Steve Nordhauser is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 01:46 PM   #424
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Posts: 358
Quote:
Steve Nordhauser wrote:
You will get a narrow FOV because the c mount sensor is smaller.
Yup, which a GG adapter will fix, and also give shallower depth of field. I wonder how practical (and expensive) it would be to design and produce a quantity of C-mount-to-F-mount GG adapters that would work directly with these cameras. That would be really nice.
Rob Scott is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 02:37 PM   #425
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western Oregon
Posts: 138
does a 'narrow FOV' mean that it would negate the properties of a wide-angle lens?
Eric Gorski is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 02:59 PM   #426
New Boot
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13
If so you could just add a fisheye to get some of the FOV back, or would the image still be distorted?
Dennis Jakobsen is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 03:25 PM   #427
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Posts: 358
Quote:
Eric Gorski wrote:
does a 'narrow FOV' mean that it would negate the properties of a wide-angle lens?
That's correct. It would be like putting instamatic film into a 35mm camera -- only the center of the image would be used; the rest would be cut off.
Quote:
Dennis Jakobsen wrote:
...fisheye to get some of the FOV back, or would the image still be distorted
Yes, you could use an extreme wide angle lens to try to get a "normal" FOV, but you would probably end up with a lot of distortion.
Rob Scott is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 03:43 PM   #428
Silicon Imaging, Inc.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Troy, NY USA
Posts: 325
Rob:
I would test that distortion because it tends to be worse at the edges of the lens. You will be using the center of the lens. I don't have anything wider than about a 28mm in my Canon bag or I could do a test shot. But, you can get a 6mm c mount lens for $120 or so. If you aren't solving the DOF problem, as Obin found, c mount might be easier.
__________________
Silicon Imaging, Inc.
We see the Light!
http://www.siliconimaging.com
Steve Nordhauser is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 03:55 PM   #429
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Posts: 358
Quote:
Steve Nordhauser wrote:
But, you can get a 6mm c mount lens for $120 or so. If you aren't solving the DOF problem, as Obin found, c mount might be easier.
Thanks for the info! Using 35mm SLR lenses is more of a long-term idea right now. I just ordered a cheapo C-mount lens off eBay for this phase of the project.

Once the system gets to where it's usable I'll decide where I want to go with it. There is something very attractive about having access to a wide variety of high-quality F-mount lenses ...
Rob Scott is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 03:58 PM   #430
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina
Posts: 444
Just to refresh, from a post within this thread.
About FPGA designs and camera


http://www.elphel.com/model313/index.html

Just a thought.Wouldnīt be useful to have a sticky thread with a compendum of all this technical things to be accessed in a simple way?

I mean chips, software tools, codecs, camera sensors, shutters, raid cards, source code, etc,etc.

@Nordhauser, could you give an idea of the pricing a sensor , Bayer pattern of 1920x1080 active pixels, 24x18 mm would have?
two, three more times the price? I mean only the sensor not the camera head....An IBIS4 1280x1024 costs around 1,000.
I think about same chips we have now (same design) but with bigger pixels...
Donīt know if small pixels but with a wider space between them would be cheaper (I think it would be a waste of space but know nothing about manufacturing procedures)
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 04:16 PM   #431
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western Oregon
Posts: 138
a 6mm c-mount lens... isn't the same as a 6mm f-mount? in terms of field of view? right? like a 6mm f-mount would be crazy fish-eye?

is there an easy conversion table?
Eric Gorski is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 04:18 PM   #432
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 223
<<<--

Donīt know if small pixels but with a wider space between them would be cheaper (I think it would be a waste of space but know nothing about manufacturing procedures) -->>>

Smaller pixels will give much more noise and less sensitivity. Look at the compact digital cameras and DSLRs side by side for same pixel count
Valeriu Campan is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 04:25 PM   #433
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina
Posts: 444
I know,I know, but I said bigger sensor total area, with the same pixel area we have now.Clearer now?
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 04:27 PM   #434
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western Oregon
Posts: 138
i'm alittle confused by the siliconimaging website... is the SI-1300 camera you guys are using just the circuitboard with the little lens on it, or is it the black box with the connections?
Eric Gorski is offline  
Old June 24th, 2004, 05:19 PM   #435
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Posts: 358
Quote:
Eric Gorski wrote:
is the SI-1300 camera you guys are using just the circuitboard with the little lens on it, or is it the black box with the connections?
It's the cute little black box.
Rob Scott is offline  
Closed Thread

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:44 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network