DV Info Net

DV Info Net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Alternative Imaging Methods (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/alternative-imaging-methods/)
-   -   Static Idea (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/alternative-imaging-methods/44879-static-idea.html)

Craig Bellaire May 19th, 2005 02:20 PM

Static Idea
 
OK after pondering the Idea of the G35 and how sharp these images are suppose to be, and seeing what is suppose to be the image from the G35... Hopefuly it is. "NO Proof Yet".. How does one get ride of the grain and still be sharp.. OK How about this.. Of course use a Beatee GG BUT on the camera side maybe even next to the GG use a filter like the promist or another filter to smear the grain slightly...remember the filter would be next to the GG so the filter effect is ever so slight.... How's that...

Dan Diaconu May 19th, 2005 03:29 PM

The effect such filter would have on the GG would translate into the same amount (of the same) on the whole pic. By the time you "loose the grain" you loose the image as well...(just a thought...) The static solution that would work would be something like the wax idea (only made industrial due to limitation of home equipment and procedures) The "milkier" (hence grain less) the GG the more light loss would occur though. The opposite is true as well, but at the added expense of vigneting. Try a drop of WD40 on a GG. Spread it well (till is almost gone) and see the brightness diff relative to vigneting.
I have tested POC diffuser. If I was to go for static, it would be my no 1 choice.
By far less grainy than Beattie but proportionally darker. (when watched on a big screen)

Bill Porter May 19th, 2005 04:25 PM

There's proof, Craig. If you want to see the footage yourself, email them. Jonathan has already posted this offer publically more than once, including right here.

Oscar Spierenburg May 19th, 2005 06:23 PM

Craig, what kind of filter are you talking about?

How about this idea:

Make some sort of contact print of the GG on a film negative (or reversal film, I don't know) at the back of the GG (not the side of the camera)
Than develop it in a way that the opposite of the grain is slightly visible but very much transparent and put it exactly in place to remove the grain.
I think it shouldn't be a real contact print, but a few mm away from the GG, otherwise you'll focus on the grain of the film.

I just wrote down this idea I got by reading your post, so maybe it's just not possible at all.

Craig Bellaire May 20th, 2005 05:26 AM

Impossable
 
Oscar, That's an interesting idea... BUT man just trying to think about to matching the film and the GG gives me a serious head ache...

Bill Porter... As for seeing the footage.. Yes I have seen it... is it good? It's the best I've seen... can I afford one... NOPE...BUT is it in production and many people have it...NOPE..."I believe it's still in beta testing" If I could buy one would I ... with out a doubt... thanks

Oscar Spierenburg May 20th, 2005 08:54 AM

Craig, matching the grain would give me a head ache too, but it if you put the negative/reversal on such a tight place when you light it, it should be put in the exact same place after development. To match the right tint of the grain (you would have to darken the lighter parts of the GG) you would have to put the thing under a photo developer and light 10 or 20 times with different lighting times.

It's a strange idea, but I think it's worth testing. (also think about this method to get rid of the Fresnel lines)

Bill Porter May 20th, 2005 10:29 AM

The other problem is if you have any flex in your adapter at all. That lens hanging off the end of the adapter puts a big lever arm on the mount, especially as you focus and unfocus. It can make it move a tiny bit, which would throw off alignment of your grain mask.

Craig,

G35's look to be somewhat available. Here is what their forum says about the ones they are selling and shipping right now: "they do not look anywhere near as cool as the production units. They only come in thread mounts. (May not be a downside to some) and they only come in Nikon mount only. Another thing, that I spoke of in a previous post. You need to zoom in a bit further than in the production units as the step-down rings will show up as vignetting in over-scan. That's it. Optically they are the same."

Craig Bellaire May 20th, 2005 12:01 PM

thanks
 
Ok I didn't know that.. But I still at this time can't afford one...

Bill Porter May 20th, 2005 04:12 PM

Me either! LOL

:)

Oscar Spierenburg May 20th, 2005 07:02 PM

I don't know what the intent of this thread was, so I won't go in too much on my thoughts on a contact print filter before I test it, although I'd like to have the opinion of people who have more experience with photo development etc.

Dan Diaconu clearly explained to me that static doesn't work, but somehow the G35 works...
This thread says: Static Idea
Can we make a list of all (valid) static ideas people worked on so far on this board? Maybe with a short description of how it works why it isn't good enough.

The last few weeks/months I feel that the spirit of exploring has gone to: "well, I can also buy it and spare me the time and head aches" .
And people who make things go and sell them here. How about some free new ideas on this thread?

Dan Diaconu May 20th, 2005 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier
This thread says: Static Idea

What more do you want? (unless I am missing something here....)
Is not static GG or static screen. Is static idea! ;-))<
Ok, ok.... I know......;-) but I just could not help it...;-)<
Obin, (since you asked): I had something in mind a few days ago, but I forgot to post (I was not curious to try it myself) but to some might be worth a try:

That wax (or anything that would melt) and two heated filters pushed together.
The air should come out if they are pushed from one side and it should not leave (if all is done well) any air. Scotch tape on one of the filters (on the circumference) should provide the means to get a thin and even layer on the whole surface. Hotspot will be there but at least is something one could practice the sought DOF.
As I mentioned before, I have and I have tested a sample from POC. Is the finest diffuser I have used. They are not expensive. This would be the best bang for the buck (IMHO) without any headaches!!!!!!!!! The hot spot is there....but there might be ways (that I do not know) to spread the light thin towards corners without Fresnel and get away with. One could also "get away with" by zooming-in a bit more (to avoid vigneting) and use good quality achromatic CU lens to be able to do so. I wish I could help more but I do not know how and each camcorder has its own zoom (zoom range and MOD) that makes it nearly impossible to come up with a formula that would work on all. If one would add ALL MONEY spent by each homemaker, it would end up with an astronomical figure. (we could go as founders, right Obin?)
and in the end, if one (or another) "sees the light" (even in the darkest corners;-)< ....) and all start jumping at the price..... make's one think... why bother?

On a different note:
I have seen today the best image I have ever seen on the screen of a Z1.
Yes. Different formula with the best result yet (and rolled some tape) I am just not prepared to go through all the trouble to capture and all that.....
I will also try next week to arrange for a demo by an independent/recognized and trusted DP to compare the best known (mini35) and MPIC and publish his findings. I will let you know.

If anyone is interested to see IT first hand, we could make some rental arrangements (if you have the budget) Email me if you want for details. Plan for at least two weeks project and I will travel. (Drama or feature)
I can guarantee that once you “see” it, you will never go for anything else (even if you can not afford to buy it for now) I might bring a static (POC) so you can see the diff first hand!

Radek Svoboda May 21st, 2005 04:02 AM

Dan,

I have FX1E. Do you have adapter that you could sell to work with it? How much is?

As to static screen you mentioned, is it fine enough to work without movement with HD camera? Which model is it? How much it cost? What is the website?

Radek

Oscar Spierenburg May 21st, 2005 06:15 AM

Dan, are you cross posting? Because I don't see no Obin on this thread. I don't WRIGHT with CAPITALS, so I'm NOT Obin...
The wax idea is good, but there is a big tread about it with lots of problems to solve I think. Some people say the G35 has a wax GG too.

Because of Radeks reply asking about prizes and so on I'd like to redo my statement:

The last few weeks/months I feel that the spirit of exploring has gone to: "well, I can also buy it and spare me the time and head aches" .
And people who make things go and sell them here.
Once people start with that, other people are thinking: If he's not giving away his ideas for free, I'm not going to either.
I'm not saying this for me (I have a working adapter and anamorphic lens), but to bring back the "brainstorming" spirit.




So for a static GG, we have had:

Beattie
POC
wax
more?

Jonathan Houser May 21st, 2005 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier
So for a static GG, we have had:

Beattie
POC
wax
more?

From what I hear Bosscreens are pretty good. That would fall under the wax catagory though.

Dan Diaconu May 21st, 2005 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier
Dan, are you cross posting? Because I don't see no Obin on this thread.

No, I ain't cross posting! Cross my heart! And I don't see no Obin either! (hmmmm...where did he go now anyway?.....)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier
I don't WRIGHT with CAPITALS, so I'm NOT Obin...

You just contradicted yourself.... Obin!
Naaaaah. I just wrote Obin instead of Oscar. My mistake and I take zeat back: nibO!Oscar There! All good now!

I know derz a thread for wax but since you asked.....on this one... I thought I shoud mention.
As for exchanging ideas: seems fine as long as they are not worth much. (Look back six months and see if I am right or no) Asking for specific examples would start a war, so don't!!!!!!!
I agree with you. The spirit of exploring is gone and I had a big role by taking away the "magic" of exploring with tests and theory right to the point (as good as I knew). No more guess involved (but no magic either) I felt that way as well. On the other hand, no more wasted money of futile experiments either. I just do not know.... Looks like derz no good whitout some bad in it.... Intention does not matter much. Only end results. You tell me...
Radek, the price is higher than initially offered. If you are still interest email me and you will see for yourself what I am talking about.
I am sorry, but (as I was told before) most "explorers" of this forum are in the begining of their careers and short of cash. Therefore, they see no immediatte need to invest in top quality gear and see an immediate return on investment (that is why all were excited to get shallow DOF on a shoe string budget) I am anxious to hear of a PAYING CLIENT to get that kind of footage in use, broadcasted, AND a see that repeated customer!!!
Also, a print on film from a Z1 using an image converter would make it clear. When that happens, the device used is as good as it can get (no matter what you or I have to say! see? no magic! just plain facts, and no hype either)
Good luck to all in this new "gold rush" .... make zeat "DOF rush".

Edited latter:
Price relative to value:
From:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...263#post315263

http://www.danmccainproductions.com/shortfilm.html

Why anyone in his whole mind would rather pay this kind of prices if they could just buy and own for less than one rental day? Makes one wonder....
(well.....at least makes me!)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:06 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2018 The Digital Video Information Network